California OAH special education order · December 2, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2024110573 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH found three of Student's 26 issues too vague for the District to prepare a defense, upheld the other issues and the residency allegations, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
Summary
The District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's 20-page due process complaint. It argued that Student had not alleged residence or enrollment in the District and that the issues were inadequately pled. OAH found that Student did plead residence and enrollment, and that issues A, C, and V were too vague because they described lack of support, psychological harm, and harm to reputation rather than clear IDEA violations. The remaining issues were sufficient, except that language referring to other special education students was struck from Issue F. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days, with numbered issues and double spacing; otherwise the hearing proceeds only on the sufficient issues.
Why it matters
OAH will not comb through a long complaint to piece together claims, so each issue should state a specific IDEA or special education violation with supporting facts. Allegations about emotional harm or reputation, or claims on behalf of other students, risk being found insufficient or struck.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)(1)
- E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 652 F.3d 999
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
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.
THERMALITO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024110573
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY INSUFFICIENT
DECEMBER 2, 2024
On November 15, 2024, Parents, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Thermolito Union Elementary School District as respondent. On November 27, 2024, Thermolito filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. On December 2, 2024, Student filed an opposition to the Insufficiency Notice.
APPLICABLE LAW
A party has the right to file a notice asserting a complaint is insufficient within 15 days of receiving a request for due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (c)(2)(C); Ed. Code § 56502, subd. ((d)(1).) 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or 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.] 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 46541, 46699.)
STUDENT’S JURISDICTION ALLEGATION IS SUFFICIENT
Thermolito asserts, as an initial statement of insufficiency, that Student failed to allege she was a resident or enrolled in the district. This is untrue. Student alleges both that she was a resident of the district, and her specific school enrollment, on page 2 of the complaint. This is not a determination of the accuracy of the facts pled. That requires proof at hearing. This is only a ruling that Student adequately pled she lived in and was enrolled in the district. However, while the jurisdictional statement meets sufficiency standards, student’s complaint is not entirely sufficient.
SUFFICIENTLY PLED ISSUES REMAIN IN THE COMPLAINT
Student alleges 26 issues, one of which is not lettered. The unlettered allegation follows letter I. Some of the issues are too vague to offer Cthe ability to prepare for resolution session, mediation or hearing. Those are discussed later in this order. While several more issues appear duplicative, or outside OAH jurisdiction; at the NOI stage, sufficiently pled allegations remain in the complaint.
ISSUES A, C, AND V, ARE TOO VAGUE
Student’s issue A alleges: Did the District fail to materially and appropriately provide Brylynn with a meaningful educational benefit? The narrative following the issue statement asserts “intentional or negligent lack of support; a worsening of Student’s behaviors, and an “inability to cope” with Student’s behaviors. The allegations go on to assert psychological harm due to being abandoned and rejected by the District and accompanying harm to Student’s “reputation.”
These are not IDEA or California special education violations that are clearly enough stated for Thermolito to determine the claims against it to allow the district to prepare for resolution session, mediation or hearing. Neither Thermolito, nor this tribunal can be required to comb through a 20 page complaint to piece together phrases to try to decipher the claims Student is asserting in the request for due process.
(see, E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District, (9th Cir. 2011) 652 F. 3d. 999, 1010- 1011.) Similarly vague allegations are also stated in Student’s issues C and V. The allegations in issues A, C, and V are too vague to allow Thermolito to understand the issues being stated against it and prepare to proceed to resolution session, mediation or hearing.
ISSUES B, D, E, F, G, H, I, THE ADDITIONAL ISSUE FOLLOWING I, J, K, L, M, N,
O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, Y, SUFFICIENTLY PLED
Issues B, D. E, include adequate detail in the narrative following the issue statement for Thermolito to understand the allegations asserted. Issue F is also sufficiently clear, however, the words “[and other special education candidates in the District(s)” (sic) are stricken, as no other special education candidates have pled claims.
Additionally, issues G, H, I, the additional issue following I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, and Y, are sufficient pled for Thermolito to understand the allegations asserted against it and to prepare for resolution session, mediation and hearing.
ORDER
1. Student’s statements of residence and enrollment in the Thermolito district
are sufficiently pled.
2. Issues B, D, E, F, (except for the statement regarding students other than
Student which is stricken); G, H, I, the additional issue following I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, and Y, of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
3. Issues A, C, and V of Student’s complaint are insufficiently pled under title 20
United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(D).
4. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
5. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not 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.
6. Student’s amended complaint shall number the issues and double space the
request for due process hearing pleading.
7. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed
only on Issues B, D, E, F, (except for the statement regarding students other than Student which is stricken); G, H, I, the additional issue following I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, W, X, and Y in Student’s complaint.
8. Nothing in this order limits another Administrative Law Judge from clarifying
issues, eliminating duplicate issues, or determining issues lie outside OAH jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings