California OAH special education order · October 15, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025100286 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH found Student's Issue Three insufficient because it stated only a conclusion that Irvine Unified denied a FAPE since October 2023, without saying what was denied, when, or why.
Summary
Irvine Unified filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Because the district did not object to Issues One and Two, OAH found them sufficient. Issue Three alleged only that Irvine Unified denied Student a FAPE and access to curriculum from October 2023 to the present, and OAH found it insufficient because it did not say what was denied, whether it rested on a specific event or document, or when the denial happened. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days; otherwise the hearing will go forward on Issues One and Two only.
Why it matters
A broad claim that a district 'denied FAPE' over a time period will not survive a sufficiency challenge unless it names what was denied, the event or document behind it, and when it happened. Parents should tie each issue to concrete facts.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025100286
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT
OCTOBER 15, 2025
On October 7, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Irvine Unified School District. On October 13, 2025, Irvine Unified 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).
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 alleges three issues, some of which are sufficient and some which are insufficient. The issues are discussed below.
Irvine Unified did not raise any objections to Issues One and Two of Student’s complaint, therefore Issue One and Issue Two are sufficiently pled to put Irvine Unified on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims.
Irvine Unified contends that Student’s Issue Three fails to include facts about the problem and thereby fails to provide an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.
Student’s Issue Three claims Irvine Unified “denied Student a FAPE and opportunity to access curriculum from October 2023 to the present.” The claim, as currently stated, provides a conclusion with no supporting information. Specifically, the issue fails to allege what is being denied, whether the claim is based upon a specific event or document, and when the denial of FAPE occurred. Therefore, Student has failed to state sufficient facts supporting this claim, and the claim is insufficient.
ORDER
1. Issue One and Issue Two of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20
United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Issue Three of Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(D).
3. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
4. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 United
States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order. The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
5. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed
only on Issue One and Issue Two in Student’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judith Pasewark Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings