California OAH special education order · May 6, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025040962 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Alliance because it gave issues and facts specific enough to let the charter school respond, and declined to address timeliness or service arguments in a sufficiency challenge.
Summary
Alliance Virgil Roberts Leadership Academy, one of three education agencies named in Student's complaint, filed a Notice of Insufficiency. It argued the complaint stated issues generally against all three agencies, raised claims outside the two-year statute of limitations, and was not served at the same time on Alliance and OAH. OAH ruled that the complaint identified issues and adequate facts specific to Alliance, and that the requested resolutions related directly to those issues. It declined to rule on the statute of limitations and service arguments because a notice of insufficiency is not the right filing for them, though Alliance may still file a motion to dismiss.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues. Statute of limitations and service defects must be raised in a motion to dismiss. Parents naming several agencies should still include facts tied to each one.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALLIANCE VIRGIL
ROBERTS LEADERSHIP ACADEMY AND TEACH ACADEMY OF
TECHNOLOGY.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025040962
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
MAY 6, 2025
On April 21, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Alliance Virgil Roberts Leadership Academy, Los Angeles Unified School District, and Teach Academy of Technology. On May 2, 2025, Alliance filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
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
Alliance asserts Student’s complaint is insufficient as it names three local educational agencies and states issues generally as to each without specificity to allow Alliance to understand how Student’s issues and resolutions apply to Alliance specifically. Additionally, Alliance asserts Student’s complaint states issues beyond the two-year statute of limitations without a specific legal basis. Lastly, Alliance contends Student’s complaint is insufficient as it was not served on Student and OAH simultaneously. Alliance’s argument regarding Student’s timing of the service of Student’s complaint as well as the appropriate statute of limitations are not addressed in this order as a Notice of insufficiency is not the appropriate pleading to address such contentions. Nothing in this order precludes Alliance from filing a Motion to Dismiss.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts, specific to Alliance, about the problem to permit Alliance to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student’s requested resolutions are directly related to issues raised in Student’s complaint.
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.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings