California OAH special education order · November 19, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024110181 · ALJ Thanayi Lindsey
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Campbell's challenge to Issue 7, because the complaint alleged a timeframe and tied a requested safety plan to bullying and threats.
Summary
Campbell filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Issue 7 of Student's complaint gave no timeframe and did not clearly connect the facts to the alleged violations. OAH disagreed. It noted that Student alleged a timeline from May 3, 2023, to the present, and alleged that Parents asked for a student safety plan because of school bullying and threats. Reading the complaint liberally, OAH found it gave Campbell enough understanding of the issues to prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing, and it confirmed the hearing dates.
Why it matters
A complaint survives a sufficiency challenge if it states a time period and links the facts, such as a parent's request for a safety plan after bullying, to the claimed violation. OAH reads complaints liberally and does not require perfect pleading.
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
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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.
CAMPBELL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024110181
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
NOVEMBER 19, 2024
On November 6, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Campbell Union School District, referred to as Campbell. On November 12, 2024, Campbell 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.)
Campbell alleges Issue 7 did not address a timeframe or clearly connect the factual allegations and the alleged violations. Student alleges a timeline from May 3, 2023, to the present date. The complaint alleges Parents requested a student safety plan in connection with the alleged school bullying and threats. Because Student’s allegations provide Campbell an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint, the complaint sufficiently connects the factual allegations and the alleged violations to allow Campbell to prepare for and participate in a resolution session, mediation, and due process hearing. Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficiently pled.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. The prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
Thanayi Lindsey Thanayi Lindsey Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings