California OAH special education order · March 27, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025030400 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the November 2023, November 2024, and January 2025 IEPs and the specific services and placement Corona-Norco allegedly failed to offer.
Summary
Corona-Norco filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It gave Corona-Norco enough notice of Student's claim that the District denied him a free appropriate public education since November 3, 2023. The claim is that the November 3, 2023, November 8, 2024, and January 17, 2025 IEPs, and their amendments, failed to offer appropriate goals, home/hospital placement, sensory integration occupational therapy, passive vision therapy, and recreational or music therapy. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the specific IEPs at issue and lists the specific services or placement the student needed will usually survive a sufficiency challenge. OAH reads these pleading requirements liberally.
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)
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
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.
CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025030400
ORDER DETERMINING
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
MARCH 27, 2025
On March 10, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Corona-Norco Unified School District. On March 26, 2025, Corona-Norco 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).
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).)
A complaint is sufficient if it:
a. 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;
b. includes facts about the problem; and
c. 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 Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260;
Sammons v. Polk County School Board (M.D.Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ)
2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist.
Board 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.)
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Corona-Norco to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation and prepare for hearing.
Specifically, Student’s complaint adequately puts Corona-Norco on notice that Student contends Corona-Norco denied him a free appropriate public education since at least November 3, 2023, by failing in the individualized education program documents dated November 3, 2023, November 8, 2024, and January 17, 2025, as well as all amendments to any of those IEPs, to offer Student:
a. appropriate goals to address all areas of need,
b. appropriate placement, specifically home/hospital,
c. occupational therapy by a sensory integration certified therapist,
d. passive vision therapy with follow-up sessions, and
e. recreational therapy and specifically music therapy to address auditory issues
related to high versus low pitches.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
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.
Kara Hatfield Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings