California OAH special education order · April 6, 2026

Order Determining Due Process Complaint Issue One Insufficient

OAH Case No. 2026010019 · ALJ Judith Pasewark

OAH found Student's child find claim for 2022-2023 insufficient because it did not plead an exception to the two-year statute of limitations or which agency was responsible for it.

Denied Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

Twin Rivers and Heritage Peak jointly filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's amended complaint. The amended complaint's Issue One alleged a child find failure during the 2022-2023 school year, which falls outside the two-year limitations period running from December 31, 2023. OAH found Issue One insufficient because it did not allege an exception to the statute of limitations, did not give facts supporting one, and did not say which agency was responsible for the exception. Issues Two through Five were not challenged and remain sufficient. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days, or the hearing will go forward only on Issues Two through Five.

Why it matters

Claims older than two years before filing must specifically plead a statute-of-limitations exception, with supporting facts, for each responsible agency. Otherwise they can be cut from the case at the pleading stage.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)
  • Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
  • Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
  • Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
  • 71 FR 46,540-46541

Topics

sufficiency statute of limitations child find charter school leave to amend

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.

TWIN RIVERS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND

HERITAGE PEAK CHARTER SCHOOL.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2026010019

ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT ISSUE

ONE INSUFFICIENT

APRIL 6, 2026

On December 31, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Twin Rivers Unified School District, and Heritage Peak Charter School. On March 22, 2026, Student filed an Amended Due Process Hearing Request, naming the same parties. On April 2, 2026, Twin Rivers and Heritage Peak jointly 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).

The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies OAH and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)

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.)

The two year-statute of limitations in Student’s complaint runs from December 31, 2023, through December 31, 2025. Student’s amended complaint alleges one issue insufficiently pled.

Issue One alleges that Twin Rivers and Heritage Peak denied Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, during the 2022-2023 school year by failing its child find obligation. The complaint fails to provide Twin Rivers and Heritage Peak with the required problem description and the facts relating to the problem.

Specifically, Issue One fails to allege an exception to the two-year statute of limitation, fails to allege facts to support an exception to the two-year statute of limitations, and fails to allege which local education agency is responsible for such exception to the two- year statute of limitations. As such, Issue One is insufficiently pled.

Issues Two through five were not challenged and remain sufficiently pled to put Twin Rivers and Heritage Peak on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims.

ORDER

1. Issues two through five of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20

United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).

2. Issue One 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 Issues two through five in Student’s complaint.

Judith Pasewark Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings