California OAH special education order · June 24, 2025

Order That Due Process Complaint Sufficiency Determination Is Moot

OAH Case No. 2025060187 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl

OAH found Cupertino's notice of insufficiency moot because expedited claims cannot be challenged for sufficiency and the only non-expedited claim, under Education Code section 48900, was already dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

Parent filed a due process complaint against Cupertino Union School District that raised both expedited and non-expedited issues. Cupertino then filed a notice of insufficiency. OAH explained that the notice of insufficiency process does not apply to expedited disciplinary hearings under 20 U.S.C. section 1415(k), because there is no provision for it and not enough time to complete it. The only non-expedited claim, an alleged violation of Education Code section 48900, had already been dismissed as outside OAH's jurisdiction, so OAH found that no claims were left to test for sufficiency.

Why it matters

Districts cannot use a notice of insufficiency to challenge expedited discipline claims, so those claims move forward on the fast timeline. Parents should know that claims that only allege student discipline code violations under Education Code section 48900 are outside OAH's jurisdiction.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
  • Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
  • Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
  • 71 Fed. Reg. 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)

Topics

notice of insufficiency expedited hearing discipline mootness jurisdiction education code 48900

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.

CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060187

ORDER THAT DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENCY

DETERMINATION IS MOOT

JUNE 24, 2025

On June 5, 2025 Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Cupertino Union School District as respondent. OAH determined that the complaint alleged both expedited and non-expedited issues and scheduled the case for both expedited and non-expedited prehearing conferences and hearings. On June 20, 2025, Cupertino 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 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.)

NO NOTICES OF INSUFFICIENCY FOR EXPEDITED COMPLAINTS

Title 20 United States Code section 1415(k)(3) permits a party to request an expedited hearing for specific reasons. Specifically, an expedited hearing can be requested to appeal a disciplinary change of placement, such as placement in an alternative education setting or a manifestation determination regarding student conduct. This section requires an expedited hearing start within 20 school days from the hearing request. There is no provision for expedited hearings under section 1415(k) to test the complaint’s sufficiency. Indeed, there is insufficient time to complete the NOI process in expedited hearings.

THE NON-EXPEDITED CLAIM ASSERTED WAS DISMISSED AS OUTSIDE OAH

JURISDICTION, THEREFORE DETERMINATION OF CLAIM SUFFICIENCY IS

MOOT

The only non-expedited issue asserted in Student’s complaint was a violation of California education code section 48900. That claim was dismissed as outside OAH’s jurisdiction. As a result, no claims remain that are subject to a sufficiency determination.

Therefore, determination of the sufficiency of the complaint is moot. The non- expedited prehearing conference and hearing previously scheduled were vacated in the Expedited Prehearing Conference Order in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings