California OAH special education order · July 24, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025070434 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. The issues on assessment, behavior support, and make-up education, read with the factual history, gave Carpinteria enough notice, and the expedited suspension issue cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
Summary
Carpinteria filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's four-issue due process complaint, which included one issue OAH had expedited. OAH found that the issues on assessment in all areas of suspected disability, behavior support, and compensatory education for time lost to suspensions were sufficient when read with the complaint's lengthy factual history. The assessment issue was broad, but it still told Carpinteria its assessments were in dispute, and the ALJ can clarify it at the prehearing conference. The expedited issue about improper suspension and threats of expulsion could not be challenged through a Notice of Insufficiency because there is no provision or time for that process in expedited hearings.
Why it matters
A complaint that pairs broad issue statements with a detailed factual history will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, because pleadings are read liberally. Districts also cannot use a Notice of Insufficiency to attack expedited discipline claims.
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 FR 46,540-46541, 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.
CARPINTERIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025070434
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
JULY 24, 2025
On July 9, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Carpinteria Unified School District, called Carpinteria. On July 23, 2025, Carpinteria 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).)
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 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.
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.)
Student’s complaint contains a lengthy factual history of Student’s education and four specific issues, including an issue that was expedited by OAH. Each of Student’s issues assert Carpinteria denied Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE. Student’s first issues alleges Carpinteria failed to adequately assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. While broad, it provides sufficient notice to Carpinteria that its assessments of Student are in dispute so that Carpinteria can participate in the resolution process and mediation. Moreover, this issue can be clarified by the Administrative Law Judge during the prehearing conference. Student’s second issue alleges Carpinteria failed to provide appropriate behavior support. Issue 3 complains Carpentaria failed to provide education to make up for time lost due to suspensions.
Issue four, which OAH expedited and therefore cannot be challenged in a Notice of Insufficiency, asserts Carpinteria improperly suspended Student and used the threat of expulsion improperly. When read in conjunction with the factual history contained in the complaint, each of Student’s issues are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problems to permit Carpinteria to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings