California OAH special education order · December 4, 2025
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025111004 · ALJ Daniel Senter
OAH found ten of Student's eleven issues sufficient because the complaint's background and fact sections supplied dates and details, but struck a catch-all issue covering violations 'discovered upon full production of records.'
Summary
Buckeye Union filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing Student's due process complaint was conclusory and lacked facts and dates. OAH found Issues 1 through 10 sufficient because the complaint's 'Student Background' and 'Statement of Facts' sections tied facts, time periods, and dates to those issues. Issue 11, a general claim for any additional violations discovered once records were produced, was found insufficient because it did not state an actual issue or give the district notice. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days; otherwise the hearing will go forward on Issues 1 through 10.
Why it matters
A detailed background and fact section can carry otherwise brief issue statements past a sufficiency challenge, but OAH will not accept placeholder claims for violations not yet identified. New claims must be added through a proper amendment once they are known.
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)
- 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. 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.
BUCKEYE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025111004
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT
DECEMBER 4, 2025
On November 24, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Buckeye Union School District. On December 2, 2025, Buckeye Union filed 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 alleges 11 claims, 10 of which are sufficient and one which is insufficient. The issues are discussed below.
Issues 1 through 10 are sufficiently pled to put Buckeye Union on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims. Buckeye Union asserts Student’s issues are conclusory and lack factual detail, including relevant dates. However, Student’s complaint includes a “Student Background” section and a “Statement of Facts” section, which provide facts connected to the issues, including time periods and dates.
With regard to Issue 11, Student fails to allege an issue, but rather generally asserts: “Any additional procedural or substantive violation discovered upon full production of records.” Student’s broad assertion fails to put Buckeye Union on notice as to the basis of Student’s claim. Therefore, Student has failed to state sufficient facts supporting Issue 11, and this claim is insufficient.
ORDER
1. Issues 1 through 10 of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Issue 11 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 U.S.C.
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 does not file an amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed on
Issues 1 through 10 in Student’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel Senter Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings