California OAH special education order · December 23, 2024

Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to West Sonoma County Consortium

OAH Case No. 2024090512 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz

OAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient against West Sonoma County Consortium because it did not explain how the Consortium's own conduct, separate from Forestville Union's, denied Student a FAPE.

Denied Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

West Sonoma County Consortium, newly added as a party by an amended complaint, filed a notice of insufficiency and a motion to dismiss. OAH found the notice timely because it was filed within 15 days of when the Consortium actually received the order adding it, which OAH had not served on it. The complaint only alleged that Forestville Union referred Student to the Consortium for placement and services, and did not say what the Consortium itself did or decided that denied Student a FAPE. Student has 14 days to amend or the Consortium will be dismissed, and the motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

Why it matters

When a complaint names more than one agency, such as a district and a consortium or SELPA, it must state specific facts about each agency's own actions or decisions. Saying one agency referred the child to another is not enough. Also, a newly added party's 15-day window to challenge sufficiency can run from when it actually received notice.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
  • Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
  • 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699

People named in the order

  • David Mishook, Attorney for West Sonoma County Consortium
  • Rommel P. Cruz, Administrative Law Judge

Topics

sufficiency multiple respondents consortium amended complaint timeliness of notice

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.

FORESTVILLE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WEST SONOMA

COUNTY CONSORTIUM.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024090512

ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT

INSUFFICIENT AS TO WEST SONOMA COUNTY

CONSORTIUM

DECEMBER 23, 2024

On December 3, 2024, Parents on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a motion to amend the due process hearing request, called a complaint, and an amended complaint, naming Forestville Union School District and West Sonoma County Consortium. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH.

On December 5, 2024, OAH granted Student’s motion to amend the complaint, and OAH deemed the amended complaint filed on that date. OAH served the December 5, 2024 Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint on Forestville Union on December 6, 2024, but did not serve West Sonoma County.

On December 23, 2024, West Sonoma County filed a Motion to Dismiss and Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. West Sonoma County moved to be dismissed as a party and challenged the sufficiency of the complaint against it. West Sonoma County filed a declaration by Attorney David Mishook, counsel for West Sonoma County, in support of the motion and notice. Mishook declared that West Sonoma County did not receive the December 5, 2024 Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint until December 12, 2024.

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, called a FAPE;

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.)

West Sonoma County filed its Notice of Insufficiency within 15 days of receiving OAH’s order granting Student’s motion to amend the complaint, which added West Sonoma County as a party. Therefore, the Notice of Insufficiency is timely.

Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled against West Sonoma County. The complaint claims Forestville Union referred Student to West Sonoma County for placement and services. The complaint fails to allege sufficient facts of how West Sonoma County’s conduct or decisions, apart from those of Forestville Union, denied Student a FAPE.

The complaint fails to provide West Sonoma County with an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint against it, to allow West Sonoma County to properly prepare for the hearing and to participate in a resolution session. Accordingly, the complaint is insufficient against West Sonoma County.

ORDER

1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under title 20 United States Code

section 1415(c)(2)(D) against West Sonoma County.

2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United

States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).

3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 United

States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed no later than 14 days from the date of this Order. The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.

4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, West Sonoma County will

be dismissed as a party, and the hearing shall proceed only against Forestville Union.

5. West Sonoma County’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.

Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings