California OAH special education order · March 9, 2026
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2026020802 · ALJ Katherine Roe
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Glendora because it alleged a failure to assess and find Student eligible for special education during specific school years, giving fair notice of the claims.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Azusa and Glendora alleging both districts denied Student a FAPE by failing to find, assess, and make Student eligible for special education. Glendora filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing the complaint lacked facts about its role and gave no legal basis for holding it responsible, and Student did not respond. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it described the problem, included supporting facts, and proposed a resolution. OAH noted that Glendora may still file a motion to dismiss itself as a party, and it confirmed all hearing dates.
Why it matters
A complaint that clearly alleges a failure to assess and find a child eligible during specific school years is usually enough to survive a sufficiency challenge, even without a response from the parent. A district that thinks it was wrongly named has to file a separate motion to dismiss, because a sufficiency notice only tests whether the claims give fair notice.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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.
AZUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GLENDORA UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026020802
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
MARCH 9, 2026
On February 17, 2026, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Azusa Unified School District, called Azusa, and Glendora Unified School District, called Glendora. On March 4, 2026, Glendora filed a timely Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. Student did not file a response.
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 five issues called a through e, with two sub-issues each labeled i and ii. Issues one (a), three (c) and four (d) allege that Glendora (issues one and four) and Azusa (issue three) denied Student a FAPE by (i) not finding him and referring him for a special education assessment and (ii) not making him eligible for special education and related services during the 2022-2023, 2024-2025, and 2025- 2026, school years. Issue two (b) alleges that Azusa denied Student a FAPE by (i)
conducting an inappropriate evaluation and (ii) not making him eligible for special education and related services. Issue five alleges that Azusa denied Student a FAPE by (i) not making him eligible for special education and related services and (ii) not conducting evaluations or IEP meetings with the legal timeframes.
Glendora contends that Student’s complaint is insufficient as to Glendora.
Glendora alleges the complaint lacks factual allegations that would allow it to discern the nature and scope of the claims asserted against it, possible resolution or to prepare a defense. Additionally, Glendora argues that Student has named it as a party without articulating a legal basis for imposing responsibility on Glendora. A Notice of Insufficiency addresses whether an issue has been sufficiently alleged to put the responding party on notice of the claims. Nothing in this Order prevents Glendora from filing a motion to dismiss as a party.
Student’s complaint is sufficiently pled to put Glendora and Azusa on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims. Student alleges a failure to assess and to find Student eligible for Special Education for a specific time period. Student describes the problem, includes facts about the problem and proposes a resolution. The complaint describes sufficient facts to provide respondents with an awareness and understanding as to the issues surrounding the alleged failure to assess and find Student eligible. Therefore, the complaint is sufficiently pled.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is sufficient under section title 20 United States Code
1415(c)(2)(D).
2. All prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Katherine Roe Katherine Roe (Mar 9, 2026 11:41:37 PDT)
Katherine Roe Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings