Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

GILROY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2025050363

ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT

SUFFICIENT

MAY 23, 2025

On May 7, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Gilroy Unified School District. On May 22, 2025, Gilroy 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

Gilroy asserts that Student’s complaint is insufficient to the extent that it asserts claims that predate the time-period two years before the complaint’s filing date. Gilroy contends that Student’s claims are insufficient unless Student’s complaint includes the factual basis for the extension of the two-year statute of limitations. Gilroy offers no persuasive authority for this assertion.

The IDEA allows states to establish their own statute of limitations for special education cases. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6)(B) and (f)(3)(C).) In California, the statute of limitations is two years from the date the party initiating the request knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the basis for the request. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).)

There are two exceptions that eliminate the statute of limitations. The first is that Parent is prevented from requesting a due process hearing because the local educational agency made a specific misrepresentation that a problem raised in the due process hearing request was solved. The second is that Parent was prevented from filing a due process hearing request because the local educational agency withheld information it was required to provide pursuant to the IDEA or California special education law. (Ed.

Code § 56505, subd. (l)(1) or (2).)

Minimal pleading standards apply to requests for due process pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast (2005)

546,U.S. 49, 54 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387].) All that is required in a due process hearing complaint is a description of the nature of the problem of the child related to an IDEA or California special education law violation, including facts relating to the problem and a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known to the party at the time of filing. (Ed. Code §56502(c)(1)(C) and (D); 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (b)(7)(B)(iii).) Student has met these requirements.

A party’s assertion that a statute of limitations bars a petitioner’s claims is an affirmative defense. Gilroy identifies no legal requirement that Student’s request for due process hearing plead facts establishing an exception to the two-year statute of limitations. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Gilroy to respond, participate in a resolution session and mediation, and to prepare for hearing.

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings