California OAH special education order · August 16, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024080145 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Kipp Academy. Its arguments about its status as a local educational agency and the statute of limitations cannot be decided through a Notice of Insufficiency.
Summary
Kipp Academy of Innovation, a charter school named with Los Angeles Unified, challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for Kipp Academy to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. Each claim was pled against both agencies together, so each applied to Kipp Academy. Whether Kipp Academy is a proper local educational agency, and any statute of limitations concerns, are not questions a Notice of Insufficiency can resolve, and Student alleged issues within the two-year period.
Why it matters
A Notice of Insufficiency only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues. It is not the place for a charter school to argue it is not the responsible agency or to raise statute of limitations defenses. Those arguments need a different motion or must wait for hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)(1)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND KIPP ACADEMY OF INNOVATION
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024080145
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
AUGUST 16, 2024
On August 5, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Los Angeles Unified School District and Kipp Academy of Innovation. On August 16, 2024, Kipp Academy filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
A complaint is sufficient if it: (1) describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the student a free appropriate public education; (2) includes facts about the problem; and (3) includes a proposed resolution to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess.
(2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108- 185, supra, at p. 34.) The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept.
10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Bd. Of Educ. V. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd. (M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. Opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. (3d Cir.
2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772, 775 [nonpub. opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. Of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Kipp Academy to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student’s complaint identifies Los Angeles Unified as Student’s local educational agency but alleges each claim collectively to both agencies. Each allegation as currently pled applies to Kipp Academy. Kipp Academy’s status as a viable local educational agency is not factually determined in a Notice of Insufficiency. Additionally, Kipp Academy’s concerns regarding the two-year statute of limitations is not subject to the Notice of Insufficiency.
Kipp Academy’s confusion over factual allegations is misguided. Student made no contentions regarding an exception to the two-year statute of limitations, and specifically alleged issues which are within the two-year time frame.
Therefore, Student’s statement of issues, in its entirety, is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Judith Pasewark Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings