California OAH special education order · September 9, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025081025 · ALJ Daniel Senter
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to five issues against Martinez, because the attachment stated the 2023-24 time period, included supporting dates and facts, and listed well-defined proposed resolutions.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Mt. Diablo and Martinez. Martinez filed a notice of insufficiency, arguing that the five issues against it lacked factual context, including relevant dates. OAH disagreed. The complaint's attachment identified the time period (the 2023-24 school year through January 2024), included many dates and facts tied to the Martinez issues, and set out five sufficiently defined proposed resolutions, so Martinez could respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
Why it matters
OAH reads the whole complaint, including attachments, when judging sufficiency. A complaint that states the time period and supporting facts anywhere in the document can defeat a district's claim that it lacks dates or context.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 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.
MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MARTINEZ UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025081025
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
SEPTEMBER 9, 2025
On August 22, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Mt.
Diablo Unified School District and Martinez Unified School District. Student’s complaint alleged five issues against Martinez and eight against Mt. Diablo. On September 4, 2025, Martinez filed a Notice of Insufficiency, called an NOI, as to the five issues against Martinez.
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
Student’s complaint is sufficient as to the five issues against Martinez. Martinez asserts that each of these issues lacks factual context, including relevant dates.
However, page 12 of the attachment to Student’s complaint indicates the time period at issue, specifically, “the 2023-24 school year through January 2024.” Also, the body of the attachment contains multiple additional dates and facts connected to the five issues against Martinez. As pled, the complaint is adequate to permit Martinez to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student has also met the legal standard regarding proposed resolutions. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The five proposed resolutions regarding Student’s issues against Martinez are set forth on page 15 of the complaint attachment. They are sufficiently well-defined.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient, as to the five issues and five proposed resolutions
against Martinez, 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.
Daniel Senter Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings