California OAH special education order · August 28, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025080841 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Diego's confusion over which filing was the complaint because Student filed a corrected complaint on August 19, 2025, and merits arguments belong in other motions.
Summary
San Diego filed a notice of insufficiency, arguing it was unclear which of Student's filings was the due process complaint and that Student's IDEA claims lacked merit. Student opposed, pointing out that San Diego's own detailed 10-day response had already summarized and narrowed the issues. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave enough facts for San Diego to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. The judge noted that Student filed a corrected complaint and proof of service on August 19, 2025, and that an earlier OAH stay-put order also identified that filing as the complaint; challenges to the merits can be raised in other motions.
Why it matters
A district that has already written a detailed response summarizing the issues will have a hard time claiming the complaint is too vague to understand. A notice of insufficiency is not the place to argue that the claims lack merit.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 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.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025080841
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
AUGUST 28, 2025
On August 19, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Diego Unified School District. On August 27, 2025, San Diego filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. On August 28, 2025, Student filed an opposition to San Diego’s notice of insufficiency asserting a San Diego August 22, 2025, detailed 10- day response to Student’s complaint stating Student’s issues it believed fell within OAH jurisdiction, summarizing and narrowing the issues as it understood them, detailing which remedies it refused, and proposing dates for resolution session, establishes the sufficiency of Student’s 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit San Diego to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
San Diego’s main bases for its notice of insufficiency is general confusion about which of Student’s prior filings constitute Student’s due process complaint, and general assertions as to the soundness of Student’s legal claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, called IDEA. San Diego’s assertion regarding which filing is Student’s due process complaint is rejected as Student filed a corrected due process complaint and proof of service on August 19, 2025. Furthermore, OAH’s August 22, 2025, Order Denying Student’s Motion for Stay-Put identifies Student’s complaint as filed on August 19, 2025. As for San Diego’s claim that Student’s contentions lack merit, nothing in this order precludes San Diego from filing additional motions. The complaint 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.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings