California OAH special education order · August 30, 2024
Order Denying Request to Determine Student's Expedited Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2024081055 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH denied Los Angeles's sufficiency challenge to Student's expedited complaint because sufficiency challenges are not available for expedited disciplinary claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).
Summary
Student filed an expedited complaint claiming Los Angeles failed to hold a manifestation determination review before changing Student's placement for more than 10 school days. Los Angeles filed a Notice of Insufficiency. OAH denied it. The procedures for challenging a complaint's sufficiency under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) and (c) do not apply to expedited claims, and there is not enough time to complete that process before an expedited hearing. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a sufficiency challenge to delay an expedited discipline hearing, such as one over a missed manifestation determination. Families keep their fast-track hearing dates even if the district objects to how the complaint is written.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)
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.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024081055
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO DETERMINE STUDENT’S
EXPEDITED COMPLAINT INSUFFICIENT
AUGUST 30, 2024
On August 28, 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, called Los Angeles. On August 29, 2024, Los Angeles filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
Title 20 United States Code section 1415(k)(3) requires an expedited hearing to appeal a disciplinary change of placement, such as placement in an alternative education setting or a manifestation determination regarding student conduct. This section requires an expedited hearing start within 20 school days from the hearing request. There is no provision for expedited hearings under section 1415(k) to test the complaint’s sufficiency. Indeed, there is insufficient time to complete this process in expedited hearings.
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint contains a single expedited issue regarding whether Los Angeles failed to convene a manifestation determination review prior to changing Student’s placement in excess of 10 school days. This issue is an expedited claim under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).
The procedures applicable to non-expedited claims, such as amended complaints pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E), and challenges to the sufficiency of a complaint pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c), do not apply to claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).
Therefore, because the procedures to challenge the sufficiency of complaints pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c) do not apply to Student’s expedited complaint, Los Angeles’s request to determine the sufficiency of Student’s expedited complaint is denied.
ORDER
1. Los Angeles’s request to determine the sufficiency of Student’s expedited
complaint is denied.
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings