California OAH special education order · September 4, 2026
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2026080704 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH found five of Student's 14 issues sufficient and nine insufficient against Stockton, mainly because of incomplete dates, missing facts, and unclear descriptions of how the IDEA was violated.
Summary
Stockton filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's 14-issue due process complaint, and Student filed an opposition. OAH found issues 1, 2, 5, 9, and 12 sufficient. It found the other nine issues insufficient because they used incomplete dates, did not identify the IEP or prior written notice being challenged, or did not explain what Stockton did that broke special education law. Student has 14 days to amend; otherwise the hearing will go forward only on the five sufficient issues.
Why it matters
Complaints should give full month-day-year dates, name the specific IEP or notice being challenged, and state the actual violation. Including claims a family is not making, or defenses the district might raise, can make an otherwise valid complaint hard to follow and lead OAH to find claims insufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)(1)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(d)(2)
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
STOCKTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026080704
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY INSUFFICIENT
SEPTEMBER 4, 2026
On August 18, 2026, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Stockton Unified School District as respondent. On September 3, 2026, Stockton filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. On September 4, 2026, Student filed an opposition to Stockton’s notice of insufficiency.
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 party has the right to file a notice asserting a complaint is insufficient within 15 days of receiving a request for due process hearing. (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, or FAPE; (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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or 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.] 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 Fed. Reg. 46541, 46699.)
Within five days of receipt of a notice of insufficiency, a determination must be made, on the face of the request for due process, of whether the complaint meets the requirements of title 20 United States Code section 1415 (b)(7)(A); and the Administrative Law Judge shall notify the parties in writing of such determination. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (c)(2)(D); 34 C.F.R § 300.508 (d) (2).) The notice of insufficiency process does not provide for the filing of opposition due to the short deadline for ruling. The ALJ is charged with making a determination of whether the request for due process filed is sufficient based on the face of the complaint. (Ibid.) However, Student’s opposition has been reviewed and considered in making the ruling in this Order.
COMPLAINT PARTIALLY INSUFFICIENT
Student’s complaint alleges 14 issues. Of those, five can be found sufficient, and they are not models of clarity. Overall, the complaint is difficult to follow due to the use of incomplete dates, meaning the absence of one or more elements of the expected month, day, year sequence. Student’s complaint is also muddied by the inclusion of claims Student states are not being made, and defenses Student believes Stockton might raise to Student’s claims. Insufficient claims lack key facts or clear facts adequate to put Stockton on notice of what Student alleges Stockton did to violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, or California special education laws.
SUFFICIENT CLAIMS
Student’s issues 1, 2, 5, 9, and 12 are found to be sufficient. If Student chooses to amend, improving the clarity of these claims by including full dates and eliminating statements of facts not being alleged or possible defenses Stockton might raise, is encouraged. However, these claims, as written, do state adequate facts to put Stockton on notice of the claims being asserted against it to enable Stockton to prepare for resolution session, mediation, and hearing.
INSUFFICIENT CLAIMS
Student’s issues 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 11, 13 and 14 are insufficiently pled.
• Student’s issue 3 fails to state how the October 15, 2025 Stockton’s
communication protocol impeded Parent’s meaningful participation in the IEP development process.
• Student’s issue 4 fails to state the date on which an IEP was convened
without Parent’s participation.
• Student’s issue 6 fails to allege facts stating an IDEA or California special
education law violation. The facts alleged appear to describe changes to Student’s class schedule.
• Student’s Issue 7 is unintelligible as written. References are made to stay
put, but facts include references to dates prior to the complaint being filed. No facts are alleged explaining the allegation or specifically stating an IDEA or California special education law violation.
• Student’s Issue 8 is insufficient as the date of June 4 is incomplete and
therefore the date of the prior written notice being alleged as deficient is not clear. All allegations appear to reference a June 4, prior written notice.
However, the issue also references a legally deficient July 30, 2026 prior written notice without including any factual allegations regarding what triggered the notice or why the July 30, 2026 prior written notice did not meet legal standards. Student is encouraged to separately plead defects alleged in multiple prior written notices.
• Student’s issue 10 fails to identify the date of the IEP being challenged.
• Student’s issue 11 fails to allege facts identifying the date of the
placement offer Student asserts did not meet Student’s needs or how the placement violated the IDEA or California special education law.
• Student’s issue 13 is unintelligible in that it fails to allege facts describing
what Stockton did that violated the IDEA or California special education laws in relation to Student’s anxiety deficits.
• Student’s issue 14 is also unintelligible as stated. The allegations do not
clearly state the IDEA or California special education law violation being asserted, while including extraneous, and apparently unnecessary, information that also fails to clarify Student’s claim.
As a result of the pleading deficiencies described, Stockton has not been adequately notified of the claims being asserted against it and, therefore, is unable to prepare to participate in resolution session, mediation or hearing.
ORDER
1. Issues 1, 2, 5, 9, and 12 of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20
U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Issues 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 11, 13 and 14 of Student’s complaint are 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 U.S.C.
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 1, 2, 5, 9, and 12 in Student’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings