California OAH special education order · December 3, 2024

Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient

OAH Case No. 2024110401 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz

OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Folsom-Cordova filed its notice of insufficiency on December 2, 2024, more than 15 days after receiving the complaint around November 12, 2024.

Complaint deemed sufficient Sufficiency of complaint

This case went to decision

Student v. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District: Folsom-Cordova Unified prevails on all 21 claims challenging a student's 2022 and 2023 IEPs in an intensive autism class. (2025)

Summary

Folsom-Cordova filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Folsom-Cordova said it received the complaint on or around November 12, 2024, but did not file and serve its notice until December 2, 2024. A sufficiency challenge must be made within 15 days of receiving the complaint, so OAH found the notice untimely and deemed the complaint sufficient. All previously set dates were confirmed.

Why it matters

A district that misses the 15-day deadline to challenge a complaint's sufficiency loses the challenge, and the complaint goes forward as filed. Parents should track the date the district received the complaint so they can point out a late challenge.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
  • Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)

Topics

sufficiency notice of insufficiency untimely 15-day deadline due process complaint

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.

FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024110401

ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT

SUFFICIENT

DECEMBER 3, 2024

On November 13, 2024, Parents on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. On December 2, 2024, Folsom- Cordova filed a notice of insufficiency as to Student’s 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). The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies OAH and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)

Here, Student filed the complaint with OAH on November 13, 2024, and served it on Folsom-Cordova on November 12, 2024. Folsom-Cordova represented in its notice of insufficiency that it received the complaint on or around November 12, 2024.

Accordingly, Folsom-Cordova’s notice of insufficiency is untimely, as it was filed with OAH and served on Student on December 2, 2024, more than 15 days of receiving the complaint. Accordingly, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code 1415(c)(2)(C). All dates previously set in this matter are confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings