California OAH special education order · August 14, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025071039 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite repeated year-by-year claims, because it described Student's specific struggles, the services sought, and proposed remedies, giving Modesto enough notice to prepare.
Summary
Modesto filed a notice of insufficiency. It argued that Student's claims were worded the same for each school year and did not identify particular IEPs or assessments. OAH found the complaint sufficient: it set out Student's specific struggles, the services Student says Modesto should have offered, the proposed remedies, and the alleged procedural and substantive violations. Any need for more detail can be handled through the resolution session, mediation, and the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
Parents do not need to tie each claim to a specific IEP or assessment if the complaint, read as a whole, describes the child's struggles, what services were missing, and what remedy is wanted. Districts cannot use repetitive year-by-year wording alone to defeat a complaint.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- H.R.Rep. No. 108-77 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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.
MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025071039
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
AUGUST 14, 2025
On July 28, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Modesto Unified School District. On August 12, 2025, Modesto filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint asserting that Student failed to state sufficient facts to support Student’s claims to give Modesto enough information to prepare a response, prepare for a resolution meeting, or prepare a defense for hearing.
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, called a FAPE; (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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Modesto complains that Student’s claims are word for word the same, for each school year challenged, without specificity as to particular IEP’s and assessments. However, at the beginning of Student’s complaint, Student’s specific struggles are set forth which Student alleges Modesto failed to assess or provide appropriate special education services to address for the school years challenged. Student also sets forth the specific services Student contends should have been offered by Modesto, and specific proposed remedies to make up for Modesto’s asserted denials of a FAPE. Student clearly articulated the specific alleged substantive and procedural violations against Modesto. Viewed as a whole, Student’s complaint provides sufficient information to enable Modesto to prepare for a resolution session, participate in mediation and hearing. Any need for more specificity of Student’s claims can be obtained through the resolution session, mediation, and the prehearing conference.
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