California OAH special education order · October 3, 2024
Order Determining Issues Two and Three of Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024090664 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's Issues Two and Three sufficient, rejecting Gilroy's time-period objection because the complaint said facts outside the two-year limitations period were for historical context only.
Summary
Gilroy filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's Issues Two and Three and the proposed resolutions. Gilroy argued they were unclear about the time period and that facts from school years outside the two-year statute of limitations kept it from preparing a defense. The ALJ found that both issues, about missed timelines for assessments, IEP meetings, and records, and about failing to assess in all areas of suspected disability, gave enough facts to give Gilroy notice. The complaint expressly stated that older facts were for historical context only. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Parents can include background facts from before the two-year limitations period without making the complaint insufficient. Stating clearly that those facts are only historical context helps defeat a district's time-period challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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.
GILROY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024090664
ORDER DETERMINING ISSUES TWO AND THREE OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
OCTOBER 03, 2024
On September 16, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Gilroy Unified School District. On October 2, Gilroy filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
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.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint asserts three issues. Gilroy challenges the sufficiency of Student’s Issue Two and Three and Student’s proposed resolutions on the basis that they are unclear as to time-period for the alleged violations. Gilroy argues that Student’s statement of facts references school years beyond the two-year statute of limitations, rendering Gilroy unable to adequately assess the allegations to prepare a defense.
Student’s Issue Two and Three assert that Gilroy denied Student a FAPE by failing to abide by the statutory timelines for assessments, IEP meetings, and production of records; and by failing to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. Student’s complaint describes the problems alleged in Issue Two and Three and includes facts sufficient to provide notice of the specific allegations to permit Gilroy to prepare a defense and participate in mediation and hearing. Gilroy’s claim of lack of clarity as to the time of the allegations is rejected as Student’s complaint specifically clarifies that any stated facts outside the statutory period are for historical context only. Accordingly, Issues Two and Three of Student’s complaint are sufficiently plead.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings