California OAH special education order · March 24, 2026
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2026030280 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against three respondents, rejecting their joint argument that it failed to separate each agency's responsibilities, because it gave adequate notice of the behavioral and transportation claims.
Summary
Victor Valley Union High School District, Hesperia Unified School District, and San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools jointly filed a Notice of Insufficiency. They argued that Student's complaint did not distinguish among the three respondents' responsibilities. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged FAPE denials: failure to assess behavioral needs, offer behavioral intervention services, develop and implement a safety plan, offer a transportation aide, and provide appropriate transportation. Read liberally, those allegations gave all three respondents enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation, so all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
When a complaint names several agencies, it does not have to assign each claim to a specific respondent to be sufficient, as long as the issues and facts are clear enough for all of them to respond. Responsibility among the agencies can be sorted out at hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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.
VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, HESPERIA
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026030280
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
MARCH 24, 2026
On March 4, 2026, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Victor Valley Union High School District, Hesperia Unified School District, and San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools as respondents. On March 19, 2026, all respondents filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint, arguing that the complaint does not distinguish between the responsibilities of the three respondents.
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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit all three respondents to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint clearly alleges that Student was denied a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, through failures to assess Student’s behavioral needs, offer appropriate behavioral intervention services, develop and implement an appropriate safety plan, offer a transportation aide, and offer or provide appropriate transportation as a related service. The complaint provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint,” as liberally construed. The three respondents are on sufficient notice of the allegations to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings