California OAH special education order · August 4, 2026

Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient

OAH Case No. 2026070872 · ALJ Daniel Senter

OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the time period at issue and stated supporting facts, even without listing the specific IEP dates Burbank said were missing.

Complaint found sufficient Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

Burbank filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's single-issue complaint did not identify the dates of the IEPs being challenged. OAH found the complaint sufficient. The issue identified the time period, the body of the complaint gave supporting facts, and the complaint put at issue every IEP 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.

Why it matters

A complaint does not have to list specific IEP dates if it clearly identifies the time period and gives facts; all IEPs in that window are then at issue. A district's own response naming the IEPs can undercut its insufficiency challenge.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
  • 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
  • M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
  • 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)

Topics

sufficiency notice of insufficiency iep dates time period pleading requirements

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.

BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2026070872

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 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 single issue alleged. Burbank asserts that the issue fails to identify 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 put at issue 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 sole 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