California OAH special education order · March 6, 2025
Order Determining Student's Amended Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025020513 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's amended complaint against Sacramento City sufficient, because it identified the issues and gave enough facts for the district to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
Summary
Sacramento City's challenge to Student's first complaint succeeded, and Student was allowed to amend. Student filed an amended complaint, and Sacramento City filed a second notice of insufficiency the same day. It argued the amended complaint did not give notice of the issues, describe the problem, or connect the facts to the claims. OAH disagreed, found the amended complaint identified the issues with adequate facts, and confirmed the prehearing conference and hearing dates.
Why it matters
An amended complaint that fixes the defects identified in a first insufficiency ruling can survive a second challenge. OAH reads pleading requirements liberally, so families can cure vague complaints by amending.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 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.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025020513
ORDER DETERMINING STUDENT’S AMENDED DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
MARCH 6, 2025
On February 14, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Sacramento City Unified School District as respondent. On February 28, 2025, Sacramento City filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. On March 3, 2025, OAH issued an order determining Student’s complaint insufficient and gave Student leave to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order.
On March 5, 2025, Student filed an amended complaint. On March 5, 2025, Sacramento City filed a second notice of insufficiency asserting Student’s complaint failed to give notice of the issues alleged, a specific description of the nature of the problem, or to connect asserted facts to Student’s allegations. Sacramento City claims these insufficiencies render it unable to adequately respond to the complaint, and prepare for, or participate in, a due process hearing.
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
The issues and facts alleged in Student’s amended complaint are sufficient.
Student’s amended complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Sacramento City to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
ORDER
1. Student’s amended complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings