California OAH special education order · August 4, 2026
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2026070865 · ALJ Daniel Senter
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient even though it did not list specific IEP dates, because it identified the time period at issue and challenged every IEP written during that period.
Summary
Burbank Unified School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Student's single issue did not give the dates of the IEPs being challenged. OAH found the complaint sufficient. The issue identified the time period at issue, the body of the complaint gave supporting facts, and Student challenged all IEPs drafted during that period. Burbank's own response named two IEPs from that period, which showed it understood the claim well enough to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. All prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not always need exact IEP dates if it clearly defines the time period and challenges all IEPs within it. A district's own ability to identify the IEPs at issue can undercut its insufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003), p. 34
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
QBEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026070865
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
AUGUST 4, 2026
On July 21, 2026, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Burbank Unified School District. On July 31, 2026, Burbank Unified School District 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 is sufficient as to the sole issue alleged. Burbank asserts that the issue fails to include the dates of the individualized education programs, called IEPs, at issue. However, Student’s issue sufficiently identifies the time period at issue, and the body of the complaint provides facts about the issue. Student has challenged all IEPs drafted within the time period at issue in the case. In addition, Burbank’s July 31, 2026, response identifies two Student IEPs during the time period at issue, which further supports the finding that Student’s complaint is sufficient to permit Burbank to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Accordingly, Student’s statement of the single claim in Student’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel Senter Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings