California OAH special education order · September 29, 2026
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2026090650 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found four of Student's six issues sufficient but ruled two issues, about a prior written notice and transportation surveillance, lacked enough facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
William S. Hart Union High School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's six-issue due process complaint. OAH found Issues 1, 2, 3, and 5 sufficiently pled. Issue 4 was insufficient because it alleged a prior written notice was issued after unspecified changes. Issue 6 was insufficient because it lacked facts about alleged monitoring, reporting, or surveillance through transportation providers. The proposed resolutions met the legal standard even though they were not well defined, and Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or proceed on the four sufficient issues only.
Why it matters
Each claim needs concrete facts, such as what changed, when, and how, so the district understands it. Vague claims can be cut from the hearing unless they are fixed by amendment. Parents without an attorney can ask OAH for a mediator to help frame their issues and proposed resolutions.
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 § 56505
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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.
WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026090650
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT
SEPTEMBER 29, 2026
On September 16, 2026, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming William S. Hart Union High School District. On September 25, 2026, William S. Hart, 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 alleges six claims in the complaint, some of which are sufficient and some which are insufficient. The issues are discussed below. Specifically, Issues 1, 2, 3, and 5 are sufficiently pled to put William S. Hart on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims. Those issues also provide William S. Hart with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation.
With regard to Issue 4, Student fails to allege sufficient facts to support this claim.
Student claims William S. Hart denied him a FAPE by issuing a prior written notice after unspecified changes were implemented. This claim does not satisfy the requirements under the IDEA to provide William S. Hart “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” Therefore, Student’s complaint has failed to state sufficient facts supporting this claim, and the claim is insufficient.
With regard to Issue 6, Student fails to state sufficient facts supporting the claim of inappropriate monitoring, reporting, or surveillance through transportation providers.
In this claim, Student fails to provide sufficient facts to put William S. Hart on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.
William S. Hart further challenged Student’s proposed resolutions requests. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint is not well-defined. However, Student has met the statutorily required standard regarding proposed resolutions.
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS: A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
ORDER
1. Issues 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Issues 4 and 6 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, 3 and 5 in Student’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings