California OAH special education order · September 10, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2025090006 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three contentions about assigning a behavior intervention implementation aide lacked enough facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
Summary
Aspire Public Schools and El Dorado County Charter SELPA each filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint appeared to raise three contentions, all generally about assigning a behavior intervention implementation (BII) aide. Even under the IDEA's liberal pleading standard, OAH found the complaint did not give enough facts for the respondents to understand the issues. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed, and all previously set dates were vacated.
Why it matters
A complaint has to describe the problem, give supporting facts, and propose a resolution. Naming a topic like a behavior aide is not enough. Parents without attorneys can ask OAH for a mediator to help draft or redraft their issues and proposed remedies.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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.
ASPIRE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND EL DORADO COUNTY CHARTER
SELPA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025090006
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
SEPTEMBER 10, 2025
On August 29, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Aspire Public Schools and El Dorado County Charter SELPA. On September 9, 2025, Aspire Public Schools and El Dorado County Charter SELPA each filed independently 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
Student’s complaint appears to have three contentions. The complaints generally address the assignment of a behavior intervention implementation, called BII, aide. Even with the liberal pleading standards of the IDEA, Student fails to provide sufficient facts to give respondents “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.”
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS:
A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request. Should Student wish to refile his complaint, it is highly recommended Student contact OAH for meditator assistance in redrafting his complaint.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings