California OAH special education order · July 17, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025060348, 2025070242 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH found Del Norte's complaint sufficient despite Student's claim that its background facts were wrong. The ALJ ruled that factual accuracy is a matter for proof at hearing, not a sufficiency challenge.
Summary
Del Norte filed a complaint seeking a ruling that its May 27, 2025 IEP offer was a free appropriate public education. Student filed a notice of insufficiency. Student argued the background facts were false, including a claim that the family was out of the country, and might concern a different student, and that the family never received the IEP. OAH found the complaint sufficient because, read within its four corners, it identified the issue and enough facts for Student to respond, and any inaccuracies must be proven at hearing.
Why it matters
A notice of insufficiency tests only whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues and facts, not whether those facts are true. Parents who dispute a district's factual claims, even claims that seem to be about another child, must contest them through evidence at hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
DEL NORTE COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060348
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025070242
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
JULY 17, 2025
On July 7, 2025, Del Norte County Unified School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Student. The complaint seeks to establish that an offer allegedly made in a May 27, 2025 individualized education program, or IEP, constituted a free appropriate public education. On July 16, 2025, Student 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
Here, Student argues that the background facts in the complaint are factually inaccurate and may pertain to someone other than this Student. The background facts, for example, allege that the family was out of the country and that Student was therefore absent from school. Student contends that is not true and that the allegations do not pertain to this Student. Student also contends that the family has not yet received a copy of the purported May 27, 2025 IEP.
Student’s notice of insufficiency seeks to adjudicate factual inaccuracies prior to hearing. Notwithstanding these inaccuracies, which are a matter for proof at hearing, the facts alleged within the four corners of Del Norte’s complaint are sufficient. The complaint identifies the issues, namely the appropriateness of an IEP offer, and adequate facts, even if these turn out to be untrue, about the problem to permit Student to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Del Norte’s claim, taken at face value and even if factually inaccurate, 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings