Sufficiency of complaint
1,672 California OAH special education orders on sufficiency of complaint, newest first, each with a plain-English summary. Search and filter these orders.
2026
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 15-issue complaint sufficient despite being rambling and repetitive, because the issues were identifiable and the facts were adequate for West Contra Costa to defend itself and prepare.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH 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.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as a whole because it was not a complete, stand-alone document and lacked Student's address. It also found several individual issues too vague to prepare for.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because claims about charter enrollment lotteries, records requests, charter funding, and school-site assignment did not allege any proposed change to Student's placement or FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's first amended complaint sufficient: although confusing and convoluted, its issues were identifiable and pled enough facts for Stockton Unified to defend itself and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Irvine sufficient because it identified the issues and enough facts about the August 27, 2026, IEP meeting and alleged unilateral service changes for Irvine to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Issue One, challenging Tahoe-Truckee's assessment plan and prior written notice, sufficient, but Issue Two insufficient because a district may seek to assess without a parent's request.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's failure-to-implement claim insufficient because it named no IEP dates or unimplemented parts, but upheld three other issues and allowed an amended complaint within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH 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.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found seven of nine issues in Student's complaint against Natomas insufficient because the facts were vague, contradictory, or duplicative, and let only two IEP-content claims go forward.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Inspire insufficient because its eight issues were only one-line statements pointing to attached exhibits, with no facts and no proposed resolutions; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Buckeye and Valley View Charter insufficient because its four claims, about charter admissions discrimination, enrollment documents, FAPE, and prior written notice, did not allege facts showing IDEA or state special education violations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient and dismissed the case without leave to amend. Student has never been assessed or found eligible, so the claims raise no IDEA violation within OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found all 37 of Student's non-expedited issues insufficiently pled as vague, disorganized, and partly time-barred, but held that the 38 expedited issues cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's eight-claim complaint sufficient, rejecting Castro Valley's argument that the claims lacked specificity and noting that whether the claims will be proven is decided at hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found 11 of Student's 17 issues sufficiently pled but ruled Issues 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 16 insufficient, mostly for failing to state timeframes, and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Sierra's claim that the issues were vague and lacked dates, because the complaint identified the issues and enough facts, including dates, for Sierra to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. All seven issues and the statute of limitations exception had enough facts for Vallejo to prepare for mediation and hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient and Notice of No Action Regarding Motion to DismissOAH found all five of Student's claims insufficiently pled because they lacked dates, IEPs, and clear facts. OAH allowed an amendment and noted the complaint's hallmarks of AI drafting.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found most of Student's nine issues sufficiently pled. The predetermination part of Issue Two and the transition plan claim in Issue Six were insufficient because no supporting facts were alleged.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH 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.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Issues 5 and 6OAH found Issues 5 and 6 of Student's complaint insufficient because they lacked facts about which IEP Hart failed to implement and what monitoring or surveillance occurred. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH 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.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient, Notice of No Action on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for ContinuanceOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because the text in the form boxes was cut off mid-sentence. It took no action on the charter school's motions to dismiss and continue, which became moot.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found eight of 13 issues in Student's second amended complaint sufficient. It rejected five as unintelligible, duplicative, or improper arguments and discovery requests, and warned against unreviewed AI-drafted pleadings.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Orchard enough facts about why Student needs a non-public school placement instead of the offered general education campus.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint against Orinda sufficient and held that a statute-of-limitations challenge to five claims raised a factual question for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its 15 listed statements mixed facts and issues. It was unclear which were issues for hearing and which respondent each was asserted against.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Sanger sufficient after Student dismissed the expedited claims that were the only target of the district's insufficiency notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all three issues in Student's complaint insufficient. They did not clearly state the special education violation, the supporting facts, or why claims older than two years were allowed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Western Placer's statute-of-limitations challenge because Student pled a discovery-based tolling theory and the district's merits arguments do not belong in a Notice of Insufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Sierra insufficient because its single FAPE issue spanned three years without tying sub-claims to specific IEPs, services, or time periods.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's single-issue placement complaint sufficient, rejecting Hart's demand for more evidentiary detail because the IDEA only requires a description of the problem, facts, and a proposed resolution.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient, Notice of No Action Regarding Student's July 3, 2026, Due Process Complaint, and Determining Respondents' Motion to Dismiss MootOAH found Student's second amended complaint insufficient because it again failed to list all issues in one section and to say which respondent each issue was against; respondents' dismissal motion was declared moot.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH rejected Buckeye Union's argument that a complaint naming three agencies together was too vague, finding the complaint described each agency's role and the dates involved.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's first amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Palo Alto's second insufficiency challenge because the four issues and facts gave the district enough information to respond and prepare.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Rescue Union because it clearly alleged a mishandled assessment request and inadequate goals and services; whether Rescue Union owed Student a FAPE must be decided at hearing.
- Amended Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient Regarding Twin Rivers Unified School District OnlyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Twin Rivers Unified only because it alleged no facts tying Twin Rivers to developing or implementing Student's IEP; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Folsom-Cordova's argument that it needed IEP meeting dates and a specific time period, because the IDEA's liberal pleading standards do not require those details.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found six of Student's ten amended issues sufficient. The other four, which used AI-style terms like "behavioral weaponization," were too unclear to give Fremont notice of a special education claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found seven of Student's eight issues sufficient under the IDEA's liberal pleading standard, but found Issue 7 too unclear because it named an unidentified charter school and county office along with Woodland.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient and Notice of No Action for Subsequently Filed ComplaintsOAH found Student's first amended complaint sufficient because its single issue, the District's refusal to add medically recommended screen time accommodations to the IEP, gave Orinda enough notice to defend itself.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Vista Unified's notice of insufficiency, e-filed at 5:08 p.m., counted as filed the next business day and missed the 15-day deadline.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified Acalanes's alleged failures to assess and to provide accommodations and services after a brain injury, with enough facts for Acalanes to respond.
- Amended Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three issues did not identify the time periods, the IEPs at issue, or which of the two respondents was responsible for each claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Baldwin Park filed its notice of insufficiency after 5:00 PM on June 4, so it counted as filed June 5, outside the 15-day deadline.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the school years, operative IEPs, or which of two respondents was responsible for each alleged FAPE denial; amendment allowed within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient Regarding Twin Rivers Unified School District OnlyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Twin Rivers Unified only because it gave no facts tying Twin Rivers to developing or implementing Student's IEP; the case continues against Center Joint Unified.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. The two districts can tell which issues apply to each from the time periods each served Student, and the IDEA requires only notice pleading.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient and Determining Joint Request for Mediation and Continuance of Due Process Hearing MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not clearly identify its issues, which appeared to involve a dispute over promotion to sixth grade, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient but limited its two issues to the facts actually pleaded: failure to assess for aide support and emotional needs, and failure to offer a one-to-one aide and nonpublic school.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's failure-to-assess-vision claim sufficient but ruled two claims about unethical behavior management under the BACB ethics code too vague and unconnected to facts, allowing amendment within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because a district's failure to hold a resolution session in another case is not, by itself, a problem about identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's Issue one sufficient but Issues two and three insufficient because they did not identify the time period, school year, or IEP at issue.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Irvine's argument that issue three failed to identify specific IEPs, because the issue clearly challenged Student's current 2025-2026 placement.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found only Issue 1 of Student's ten-issue complaint sufficient. The ALJ said Issues 2 through 10 read like AI-generated quasi-legalese and lacked key facts, such as school years and IEPs.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 52-page complaint sufficient because it gave Sacramento enough notice to join a resolution session and mediation, but claims outside the statute of limitations were insufficiently pled.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its retaliation, no-contact, sibling, and stay put allegations were vague, undated, and not tied to special education eligibility or a FAPE denial.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because the refiled version left out the attachment describing the problem and facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found four of Student's claims sufficiently pled but ruled the lack-of-progress and statute-of-limitations sections insufficient because they only recited law without facts about Student.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Buckeye Union filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, making the challenge untimely.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged harassment, unsafe conditions, and a hostile environment at Castaic High without any supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Issues 4, 6, and 9, and Insufficient as to Issue 13OAH found Student's predetermination and assessment claims sufficiently pled but found the Section 504 and ADA claim insufficient because OAH lacks jurisdiction over civil rights claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its single one-sentence issue about speech-language service scheduling gave no facts, time period, or IEP date; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found only Issue B sufficient and the other seven issues insufficient for lacking specific facts. It also held the complaint must state who holds Student's educational rights after Student turned 18.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient, rejecting South Pasadena's challenge to a transportation-safety claim because notice pleading does not require naming specific violated provisions, a causal nexus, or regression.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 35-page complaint sufficient despite Victor Valley's objections that it was overly detailed and repetitive, because it gave notice of the time period and specific claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found only Student's least-restrictive-environment claim sufficient, limited to the August 25 and September 29, 2025 IEPs. The other four counts failed to identify which IEPs were at issue or when violations occurred.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Sage Oak's complaint sufficient because Student's notice of insufficiency was filed more than 15 days after the complaint, and the complaint adequately identified the issues and facts in any event.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH refused to test the sufficiency of Student's expedited manifestation determination claim but found the eight non-expedited issues insufficiently pled, mainly for missing dates and facts, and allowed Student to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. The facts section identified the IEP meetings, dates, and offers tied to each issue, and Student disclaimed any claims outside the statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's fourth amended complaint sufficient on the AAC device access and assessment issues, but dismissed a vague third issue and barred any fifth amended complaint after four filing attempts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its phone-screenshot issues did not clearly describe the problem or supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because, despite heavy use of IDEA terminology, its bullying, discipline, and retaliation allegations did not describe an IDEA problem or supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify which IEP or IEPs were challenged or when Rocklin made the disputed testing accommodation decisions; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It clearly alleged that Huntington Beach City failed to arrange a high school transition IEP meeting, and whether the district was responsible is a question for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint mostly sufficient: the failure-to-reenroll FAPE claim and the hospitalization services claim may proceed, but the child find claim lacked supporting facts and needs amendment.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Issue One InsufficientOAH found Student's child find claim for 2022-2023 insufficient because it did not plead an exception to the two-year statute of limitations or which agency was responsible for it.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient because it listed vague, conclusory statements about transportation and safety without identifying the IEPs or school years at issue. OAH allowed a second amendment.
- Order Determining Third Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's third amended complaint insufficient because no issue gave dates, school years, or IEPs. OAH appointed a mediator and warned that a fourth deficient complaint will be dismissed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite typographical errors, because its detailed educational history and facts about an unwritten October 2024 evaluation request put Los Angeles Unified on notice of the issues.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. All eight issues, and the requests to extend the statute of limitations for three of them, gave San Ramon enough information to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found all nine of Student's claims sufficient because, read liberally, the complaint gave San Ramon Valley Unified enough facts to understand each problem; the district's insufficiency challenge failed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH 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.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that a stray reference to "District" was a harmless error and that each issue clearly stated which respondent it was pled against.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient for claims from March 6, 2024 onward but insufficient for claims back to 2018, because Student gave no legal or factual basis to extend the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Second Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's Second Amended Complaint insufficient because its issues lacked school years and IEP dates, and ordered any third amended complaint to put all issues and facts in one document.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found 4 of Student's 11 issues sufficient and 7 insufficient. The insufficient issues lacked facts or did not explain how they related to identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Los Angeles County Office of EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Los Angeles County Office of Education because it named the county office but alleged no facts or claims against it. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Insufficient as to Glendale Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's non-expedited claims against Glendale insufficient because they lacked time frames and specifics. The expedited discipline and exclusion claims proceed because sufficiency challenges do not apply to expedited claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Glendora because it alleged a failure to assess and find Student eligible for special education during specific school years, giving fair notice of the claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against South Pasadena insufficient because its issues about transportation, nursing services, records, and retaliation were conclusory and did not describe a problem or state facts supporting an IDEA claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not allege when or how Parents learned of the facts behind their 2024 claims, or how the IEP goals and services fell short, but allowed amendment.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's health-needs and educational-needs issues sufficient but ruled the request to extend the two-year statute of limitations insufficient because the complaint gave no dates for older claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it challenged a February 2026 suspension without describing a problem or facts tied to an IDEA claim or any IEP component.
- Order Determining Student's First Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's first amended complaint sufficient because Visions filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the amended complaint.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient because Issue one alleged a FAPE denial since August 2023 with six specific contentions, giving San Francisco enough notice to prepare.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found six of Student's seven claims insufficient because they were vague, undated, duplicative, or confusingly copied. Only the failure-to-implement claim was sufficient. Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining First Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it still raised claims for multiple children, gave no dates for the disputed IEPs or assessments, and did not tie its facts to specific claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave enough facts and proposed resolutions for Los Angeles to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Parent's complaint sufficient, ruling it clearly described Chico's alleged failures to implement the IEP, include Parent in IEP meetings, complete an approved IEE, and maintain stay-put services.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it lumped three respondents together without saying which issues applied to which, or whether the charter schools were local educational agencies.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Riverside Unified's complaint sufficient. Read as a whole, it clearly identified the January 20, 2026 IEP placement offer at issue, and a single clerical mislabeling did not create ambiguity.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's IDEA claims insufficiently pled because unclear subheadings on parent participation, lost opportunity, and failure to implement did not tell Murrieta Valley which facts supported which claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 79-page, 16-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Manteca Unified's vagueness challenge because each issue pled facts, time frames, IEP components, and the district's legal obligations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Parents' complaint insufficient because it covered multiple students in one filing and gave no dates for the IEPs, assessments, or problems claimed. Parents get 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all six issues in Student's complaint against Goleta Union insufficient because they gave no time frames, no specific IEPs, goals, services, or evaluations, and no supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all three of Student's issues insufficient because they gave no timeframe, did not tie the conduct to a FAPE denial, and left OAH's jurisdiction unclear. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because Twin Rivers' insufficiency notice was filed late, and in any event the complaint identified Twin Rivers as the responsible agency and alleged specific IDEA violations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Student alleged Ventura used immunization rules to keep an independent evaluator from observing him at school, and OAH said a sufficiency challenge cannot decide jurisdiction or the merits.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint mostly sufficient but ruled three IEP implementation claims and any claims before December 30, 2023, insufficiently pleaded, allowing Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Issue 8 of the Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Issue 8 of Student's complaint sufficient because its chronological placement and factual allegations showed it covered Auburn Union's failure to assess Student during the 2025-2026 school year.
2025
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Issues in Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all three non-expedited issues insufficient because the allegations of racial discrimination, retaliation, disenrollment, and a fundraiser were not tied to any denial of FAPE. OAH took no action on expedited claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint partially sufficient. Vague claims about failing to assess in all areas, denying IEEs, and denying FAPE lacked needed facts, but claims about the behavior assessment, transportation and aide, and delayed due process filing proceed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Ramon's vagueness challenge because each issue included dates, IEP facts, and school years, and noting that a jurisdiction objection does not make a complaint insufficient.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient after Student withdrew Issue 1(a) and Issue 2, which reached back before the two-year statute of limitations with no stated basis for an exception.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint Sufficient, in PartOAH found Student's complaint sufficient for claims within the two-year statute of limitations but insufficient for earlier claims, because the complaint gave no basis to extend the limitations period.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Oakland's arguments that most issues lacked specific dates and that the complaint failed to link facts to each sub-issue.
- Order Determining Expedited Issue Sufficient and Non-Expedited Issues in Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH ruled Student's expedited manifestation-determination claim cannot be challenged as insufficient. It found all non-expedited claims too vague because a long event summary was never tied to specific IEPs or assessment triggers.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it stated no issues and mostly described pandemic-era events from 2020 to 2022, outside the two-year limit. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's bullying complaint insufficient because it did not tie the bullying to Student's disability, special education, or a denial of FAPE, but allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Los Angeles County Charter SELPAOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Los Angeles County Charter SELPA because its only issue named the charter school and made no claims against the SELPA; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's Issues Two and Four insufficient because they cited IEP meetings on dates the complaint never otherwise described. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found ten of Student's eleven issues sufficient because the complaint's background and fact sections supplied dates and details, but struck a catch-all issue covering violations 'discovered upon full production of records.'
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found 15 of Student's 17 issues sufficiently pleaded but rejected two general FAPE-denial issues as circular and redundant, giving Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH unexpedited the case because Student disclaimed any expedited issues, and found all 12 issues insufficiently pled for lacking facts about Student's own IEPs, services, behaviors, and records.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It gave Glendale enough timeframes and facts to respond, and notice pleading does not require naming specific staff members.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Claims Partially SufficientOAH found 17 of Student's 32 non-expedited issues sufficiently pleaded and the rest insufficient for lacking clear facts. It held that expedited claims cannot be challenged through a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining Expedited Due Process and Nonexpedited Issues SufficientOAH rejected Clovis's insufficiency challenge. The sufficiency process does not apply to expedited disciplinary claims, and Student's detailed 112-page complaint gave Clovis enough notice on the non-expedited issues.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficiently PledOAH found Student's lengthy 42-page complaint sufficient. Despite vague and unintelligible passages, the issues listed from page 30 on gave Alisal Union enough information to prepare for hearing, resolution, and mediation.
- Order Determining Issue Three of Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH again found Student's issue three insufficient because the amended complaint added vague paragraphs mostly about events outside the statute of limitations, without saying what FAPE denial occurred or when.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its three issues on assessment, prior written notice and the IEP offer, and predetermination gave East Side enough information to prepare, and it included proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all 22 issues, rejecting Antioch's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the IEPs, assessments, and services at issue with enough facts to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Woodland Joint Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Woodland Joint Unified because it alleged no facts showing Woodland's involvement after Student transferred to Davis, and sought an improper advisory ruling on future responsibility.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to MoragaOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient as to Moraga because it pleaded nearly four pages of facts about Moraga's referral, assessment plan, and assessment, giving Moraga fair notice of Issues 1 and 2.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it charged a charter operator, a charter school, and Los Angeles jointly and severally without saying which respondent did what, or when.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three issues, about eligibility and stay put, a misleading IEP, and an ignored IEE, lacked basic facts such as which IEP or evaluation was involved.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Issues in Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH refused to test the expedited manifestation-determination claim for sufficiency. It found Student's child-find and IEP claims insufficient because they lacked facts showing Chino Valley knew or should have suspected a disability.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting La Mesa-Spring Valley's challenge, because Student alleged district misrepresentations and missing procedural safeguards notices that support claims older than two years.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint Sufficient and Notice of No Action on Stay PutOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient over Stockton's second insufficiency challenge. Each of its six issues gave fair notice of the facts and time frames, though the complaint was not a model of clarity.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged only fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, and breach in two prior settlement agreements, with no facts and no claim that Student was denied a FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Kern High School District insufficient because none of its three issues described a special education violation by the District or the supporting facts, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's Issue Three insufficient because it stated only a conclusion that Irvine Unified denied a FAPE since October 2023, without saying what was denied, when, or why.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Moraga insufficient because it did not allege facts showing Moraga was the responsible local educational agency or describing anything Moraga itself did to deny a FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against San Gabriel because it identified the issues and facts, and San Gabriel's objections to the remedies were defenses on the merits, not pleading defects.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Hayward Twin Oaks MontessoriOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Hayward Twin Oaks Montessori because it lumped the school with Achieve Kids and gave no facts showing the school was responsible for Student's education or when.
- Corrected Order Determining Non-Expedited Claims Partially Sufficient and Partially Insufficient; Order Dismissing Issues 5, 6, 7 and 21 for Lack of JurisdictionOAH found eight non-expedited issues insufficiently pled because they lacked dates and facts, kept five issues, dismissed four state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction, and refused to test expedited discipline issues for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Claims Partially Sufficient and Partially Insufficient; Order Dismissing Issues 5, 6, 7 and 21 for Lack of JurisdictionOAH found eight non-expedited issues insufficiently pled because they lacked dates, specific IEPs, or supporting facts, and dismissed four issues based on state Education Code provisions outside its jurisdiction.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its separate "Issues Presented" and "Legal Bases" sections were not reconciled, leaving it unclear whether Student intended seven or up to 15 issues for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three contentions about assigning a behavior intervention implementation aide lacked enough facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient: claims about the March 21, 2025 IEP and a November 6, 2024 meeting held without Parent may proceed, but most claims failed to identify which IEPs were challenged.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to five issues against Martinez, because the attachment stated the 2023-24 time period, included supporting dates and facts, and listed well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Diego's claimed confusion over the operative complaint as disingenuous and its vague, unsupported insufficiency arguments under IDEA's minimal pleading standard.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's third amended complaint sufficient, including older claims back to 2016, because Student added specific facts alleging the charters' misrepresentations to support an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient for claims within the two-year limitations period but insufficient for 2022-2023 claims because Student gave no notice of any legal basis to extend the statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient against El Dorado County SELPA, holding that a sufficiency challenge is not the way to decide whether the SELPA is a proper party.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient. Read liberally, its narrow claim gave the SELPA enough notice that the SELPA failed to ensure the charter school provided speech and counseling services.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Sierra Sands filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the complaint was filed and served on August 8, 2025.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Diego's confusion over which filing was the complaint because Student filed a corrected complaint on August 19, 2025, and merits arguments belong in other motions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint partially sufficient, allowing claims tied to specific dates (consent obtained November 14, 2024, services ended May 28, 2025, records request) but rejecting vague claims lacking identifying details.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's two-page amended complaint insufficient because it contained no factual allegations supporting any claim, and gave Student 14 days to file a new amended complaint or face dismissal.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's Second Amended Complaint sufficient, rejecting Petaluma's third insufficiency challenge because the IDEA does not require the background detail Petaluma demanded and prior orders already accepted identical claims.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Claims Insufficient; and Dismissing Issues 2 and 5 for Lack of JurisdictionOAH refused to review expedited discipline claims for sufficiency, dismissed two claims under general Education Code statutes for lack of jurisdiction, and found ten non-expedited claims insufficient for lacking dates and supporting facts.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it did not say how many issues it raised, which claims targeted Invictus or SELPA, or give enough supporting facts; Student may amend again.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Sierra Sands insufficient because all three issues lacked a clear problem description and supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite repeated year-by-year claims, because it described Student's specific struggles, the services sought, and proposed remedies, giving Modesto enough notice to prepare.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Rosedale's due process complaint sufficient because it clearly raised one issue: whether its October 2023 multidisciplinary assessment was appropriate, so that it need not fund independent educational evaluations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPAOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPA because every issue was aimed only at "District" and a blanket liability statement did not tell the SELPA what claims it faced.
- Order Determining Second Amended Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient for claims from May 16, 2023 forward, but insufficient for older claims in Issues 3, 6, 7, and 9.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against El Dorado SELPA because it did not say who conducted the challenged evaluation or how the SELPA, in its funding or oversight role, denied Student a FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPAOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPA because it alleged no facts showing the SELPA was responsible for Student's education or violated the law.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's claims on late assessment, missing IEP services, and procedural violations sufficient, but found the general FAPE claim and the claim based on a CDE investigation lacked supporting facts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient. Claims about late assessment, missing IEP services, and procedural violations can proceed. A general FAPE claim and a claim based on a state investigation lacked enough facts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all ten claims in Student's amended complaint insufficient because they lacked facts such as dates, documents, and events, and allowed a second amended complaint within 10 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. The issues on assessment, behavior support, and make-up education, read with the factual history, gave Carpinteria enough notice, and the expedited suspension issue cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged only "errors on IEP" without giving the IEP date or describing the errors, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to All Claims From 2020-2021 Through 2024-2025 School Years, Sufficient as to Issues 2 and 3, and Sufficient as to Issue 5 for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 School Years OnlyOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient back to the 2020-2021 school year. It held that alleged withholding of special education rights information can excuse the two-year limit, but found Issue 5 sufficient only for 2023-2025.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Del Norte's complaint sufficient despite Student's claim that its background facts were wrong. The ALJ ruled that factual accuracy is a matter for proof at hearing, not a sufficiency challenge.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Issues 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 sufficient but limited Issues 3, 6, 7, and 9 to claims from May 16, 2023 forward, because Student pleaded no facts supporting a statute-of-limitations exception.
- Order That Due Process Complaint Sufficiency Determination Is MootOAH found Cupertino's notice of insufficiency moot because expedited claims cannot be challenged for sufficiency and the only non-expedited claim, under Education Code section 48900, was already dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient. Claims before June 6, 2023 were cut because the complaint did not plead facts showing Petaluma misrepresented or withheld information. Several issues lacked specific facts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all challenged issues because, read liberally, it gave Montebello Unified enough facts about the assessment, services, assistive technology, predetermination, and participation claims to prepare a defense.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's 125-page complaint only partially sufficient, identifying specific IDEA claims in each of seven Problems and finding everything else too vague or outside OAH's IDEA-only jurisdiction.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's three claims sufficient for events on or after May 16, 2023, but insufficient for earlier events because the complaint did not plead facts supporting a statute of limitations exception.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found 14 of Student's 16 claims insufficient because they did not identify the specific IEPs, services, assessments, or incidents at issue. Only Issues G and L were sufficient, and Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Expedited Issues Sufficient and Non-Expedited Issues InsufficientOAH found all five non-expedited issues insufficient because they gave no timeframe and lacked facts, but kept the expedited suspension claim on calendar because expedited claims cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's issues 3 through 13 insufficiently pled because they lacked dates, IEPs, and essential facts, but held that expedited Issue two cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Gilroy's argument that claims older than two years must plead facts supporting a statute-of-limitations exception, because the limitations period is an affirmative defense.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss claims older than two years, holding that a notice of insufficiency cannot be used to seek dismissal on statute-of-limitations grounds.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency as PrematureOAH denied La Mesa-Spring Valley's notice of insufficiency as premature because it challenged a 'corrected' complaint that was never actually filed; Student's notice of errata cannot substitute for a motion to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Natomas's argument that Student had to plead facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations, because limitations is an affirmative defense.
- Order Determining Due Process Hearing Complaint Insufficient; Notice of No Action Regarding Second Filed Due Process Hearing Complaint; and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because both issues lacked timeframes and supporting facts and the birth date was impossible. OAH denied Temecula Valley's standing-based motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient for claims from April 22, 2023, onward but insufficient to extend claims back to 2017, because it did not describe specific misrepresentations or withheld information that delayed filing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's claim that New Haven ignored an independent evaluation request sufficient, but found two other claims insufficient because they did not say what services were missed, when, or what the District did wrong.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Alliance because it gave issues and facts specific enough to let the charter school respond, and declined to address timeliness or service arguments in a sufficiency challenge.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient. Eleven issues go forward, including a claim to extend the statute of limitations. Ten issues were too vague or sought systemic, district-wide relief outside OAH's reach.
- Order Granting Request to Amend Date of Filing and Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH reset the complaint's filing date to when the charter school actually received it, making the school's insufficiency notice timely, and found Student's complaint too unclear to proceed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite grouping three agencies together as "respondents," because alleging Ukiah Unified was the responsible local educational agency put it on notice of the claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 40-page complaint sufficient because it addressed each IEP team meeting within the two-year limitations period and identified specific annual goals and their alleged flaws.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all ten issues in Student's complaint against Tahoe Truckee insufficient because they lacked specific facts, dates, and any explanation of how Student was denied a FAPE, and included no proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Sacramento Charter School filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the complaint was filed, making the challenge untimely.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's child find claim insufficient because Student had been eligible with an IEP since 2019, but found the assessment, IEP offer, and parent participation claims sufficiently pled.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's bullying, teacher-qualification, and class-removal claims sufficient. It refused to test the expedited manifestation claim's sufficiency, and found only the suspension-notice claim insufficient for not tying it to FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's 2022-2023 claim insufficient because it did not identify which IEP offers were challenged or plead a statute of limitations exception, but found the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 claims sufficient.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the November 2023, November 2024, and January 2025 IEPs and the specific services and placement Corona-Norco allegedly failed to offer.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 21-issue complaint sufficient, ruling it need not list dates or names and adequately pled misrepresentation and withholding-of-information exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Student's Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint against Sacramento City sufficient, because it identified the issues and gave enough facts for the district to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three issues, covering FAPE denial, a refused one-on-one BCBA therapist, and unlawful restraint, lacked facts explaining what Mark West did and when.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its inconsistent numbering and unrelated prose made the issues impossible to follow or count, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Capistrano's claim that more factual detail was needed, because the issue statements on child find, assessment, and the return-to-campus offer gave adequate notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that her child find claims against Poway gave enough facts for the district to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Western Placer's challenge to a statute-of-limitations waiver because the complaint's claims stay within the 2024-2025 school year and seek no waiver.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its single issue, a claimed need for an in-home personal aide, gave Sierra Sands enough information to respond, even without a stated time frame.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint partly insufficient. A claim that Los Angeles failed to pay agreed settlement reimbursement did not state an IDEA violation. Most challenges to the June 7, 2024 IEP met minimal pleading standards.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Parents' letter to Oakland's Superintendent insufficient as a due process complaint because it mentioned two students, gave no dates or facts, and proposed no resolution; Parents may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused Sequoia's request to dismiss older claims on statute-of-limitations grounds, because a notice of insufficiency cannot be used to dismiss claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 48-page complaint sufficient, rejecting Santa Clara's challenge to claims outside the statute of limitations because whether Student can pierce the limitations period needs factual findings at hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Capistrano insufficient because it was identical to an earlier complaint OAH had already found insufficient, giving Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Alliance College-Ready Middle AcademyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Alliance College-Ready Middle Academy because it named Alliance but gave no facts about how Alliance denied Student a FAPE. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Downey insufficient because it mixed claims across a declaration, gave no dates for the special education exit, and did not explain the GATE testing claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that expedited discipline issues cannot be challenged for sufficiency and that the non-expedited child find, bullying, consent, and SARB claims gave Downey enough notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because the attached Parent declaration described three issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions, even though Downey said it never received the attachment.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Downey's claim that it lacked a specific, fact-based account and holding Downey sought a higher pleading standard than the law requires.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found 16 of Student's 17 issues sufficiently pled despite missing IEP dates, but held the failure-to-implement claim insufficient because it did not identify a specific IEP Petaluma City failed to implement.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found East Side's due process complaint sufficient, rejecting Student's challenge because minimal pleading standards apply and the complaint gave Student enough information to prepare for resolution, mediation, or hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Oakdale's notice of insufficiency because the detailed 16-page complaint stated six clear issues with ample facts for Oakdale to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint about repeated changes to his one-to-one aide sufficient, because aide implementation is a FAPE dispute and Burbank's staffing-discretion argument goes to the merits.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all three issues in Student's amended complaint insufficient because they were nearly identical to the already-rejected original issues. Student may amend again within 14 days or face dismissal.
2024
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to claims before December 6, 2022, because it pled no facts supporting either exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its single issue about Oxnard's December 7, 2022 IEP stated enough facts for the district to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to West Sonoma County ConsortiumOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient against West Sonoma County Consortium because it did not explain how the Consortium's own conduct, separate from Forestville Union's, denied Student a FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Garden Grove filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, making the challenge untimely.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all three issues in Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain how Capistrano Unified failed child find or assessment, or which current offer was challenged; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Read liberally, all 11 issues gave Northern Humboldt Union enough facts to understand the claims, prepare for hearing, and take part in a resolution session.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Folsom-Cordova filed its notice of insufficiency on December 2, 2024, more than 15 days after receiving the complaint around November 12, 2024.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found three of Student's 26 issues too vague for the District to prepare a defense, upheld the other issues and the residency allegations, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint against Folsom-Cordova Unified insufficient because none of its five issues identified the time periods, IEPs, or specific assessments being challenged; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Campbell's challenge to Issue 7, because the complaint alleged a timeframe and tied a requested safety plan to bullying and threats.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Palo Alto's demand that Student explain why previously consented-to IEPs were inadequate, because only minimal pleading standards apply.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Castro Valley enough facts to understand the child find, predetermination, IEE, and IEP claims. OAH declined to address the district's statute of limitations and jurisdiction arguments.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Claims Alleged Against La Mesa-Spring Valley School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against La Mesa-Spring Valley because it clearly separated claims by district and met the IDEA's minimal pleading standards, which do not require detailed evidence or proof of residency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's due process complaint against Bellflower sufficient because it identified four issues, gave adequate facts, and stated well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's failure-to-assess issue sufficient but held the other two issues insufficient: one repeated Issue 1, and the other did not tie Student's needs to specific defects in the challenged IEPs.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its proof of service and cover sheet supplied names and address, and seven issues gave Manhattan Beach enough facts to prepare.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It said the ten issues gave Orange Unified enough notice, and that not specifying which agency was responsible for each claim was not a fatal pleading defect.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's broad denial-of-FAPE claim insufficient because it did not identify which parts of the IEP offer failed Student. Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because neither issue gave Claremont enough specific facts about IEP-related acts or failures to understand the claims, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Issues Two and Three of Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's Issues Two and Three sufficient, rejecting Gilroy's time-period objection because the complaint said facts outside the two-year limitations period were for historical context only.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite a messy format. Taken as a whole, it identified discrete issues about the February 2022 IEP's placement and specialized instruction for the 2022-2023 school year.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because both issues lacked timeframes, facts about how Capistrano failed Student, and identification of any challenged placement offer or IEP. Student has 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Due Process Claims SufficientOAH found Student's non-expedited claims sufficient and held that expedited discipline claims cannot be challenged through a notice of insufficiency, because the IDEA provides no such procedure for expedited hearings.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Shasta Union High School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Shasta Union, ruling that Parent's standing is not a proper sufficiency question and that the three issues and proposed resolutions gave adequate notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Issue 1 of Student's complaint insufficient for claims before August 26, 2022, because Student pled no facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's claims against Campbell Union High School District insufficient because the complaint gave almost no facts about the high school district and did not say which proposed resolutions applied to it.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient Against San Bernardino County Superintendent of SchoolsOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools because every issue named only Adelanto Elementary, giving County no notice of what it allegedly did wrong.
- Order Denying Request to Determine Student's Expedited Complaint InsufficientOAH denied Los Angeles's sufficiency challenge to Student's expedited complaint because sufficiency challenges are not available for expedited disciplinary claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3).
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's six-issue complaint sufficient because it identified the specific assessments and IEPs at issue and the alleged defects, which gave Escondido Union enough notice of the claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found three of Student's claims sufficient, covering missed IEP meeting requests and refused tuition reimbursement, but found any other claims, such as a private placement challenge, insufficient for lacking dates and IEP details.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found four of Student's seven issues sufficient but ruled the issues on IEP implementation, IEP content and placement, and parental participation insufficient because each bundled several claims without identifying specific IEPs, goals, or incidents.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Kipp Academy. Its arguments about its status as a local educational agency and the statute of limitations cannot be decided through a Notice of Insufficiency.
- Notice of No Action Regarding Notice of Insufficiency and Request for DismissalOAH declined to rule on Riverside's notice of insufficiency and request for dismissal because the district combined them with its complaint response in one document, and OAH does not rule on multiple-motion filings.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it expressly limited claims to August 2022 through the 2023-2024 school year, and the district's concerns about dates and charter school enrollment were defenses, not pleading defects.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that Student need not plead every fact supporting a statute-of-limitations exception, and that claims running past the filing date are a prehearing conference matter.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient as to Sunol Glen, because Student pleaded specific yearly misrepresentations and withheld notices that support statute of limitations exceptions, plus enough facts about withheld records.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint wholly insufficient because its allegations of fraud, perjury, and obstruction by Del Mar Union and its attorneys were not tied to Student's identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE.
- Order Determining First Amended Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially Insufficient, and Order Dismissing Issue 9, Sua SponteOAH found most of Student's amended complaint sufficient, including tolling allegations, but found the vague IEP-implementation claim insufficient and dismissed Section 504, ADA, and civil rights claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Manhattan Beach's challenge because the complaint listed Student's address and gave adequate notice of child find and assessment claims under minimal pleading standards.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's refiled complaint insufficient again because it did not say whether Student was eligible, what time frame was involved, or how Twin Rivers violated special education law.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because, although it listed facts under three issue boxes, it never stated what legal claim Student was actually raising; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Dismissing Magnolia Elementary School as a Party, Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient, and Denying Request for Mediation Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's amended complaint entirely insufficient because it was unintelligible, dismissed Magnolia Elementary School as a respondent because it is not a public agency, and denied joint mediation without prejudice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's records, child find, eligibility, and civil rights claims against Sunol Glen sufficient. Claims older than two years survive only on the allegation that Sunol Glen said a 504 plan resolved Parents' concerns.
- Order Dismissing Magnolia Elementary School as a Party, Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient, and Denying Request for Mediation Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's amended complaint entirely insufficient as unintelligible, dismissed Magnolia Elementary School because a school site is not a responsible public agency, and denied joint mediation until a sufficient complaint is filed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified a single placement dispute with enough facts for Mountain View-Whisman to respond, and rejected the district's jurisdiction argument as a basis for insufficiency.
- Order Denying Request to File Third Amended Complaint Without Prejudice; and Finding Second Amended Complaint InsufficientOAH found self-represented Parents' amended complaint insufficient and refused another amendment because they again filed a narrative without clear problems or proposed resolutions, despite a prior order explaining the requirements.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's eligibility claim insufficient only for events before June 20, 2022, because no statute-of-limitations exception was alleged, and found the hostile-environment and suspension claim sufficiently pleaded.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. The failure-to-assess claim was backed by enough facts about Parent's February 2024 academic concerns, and the charter's objections were defenses to decide at hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint partly insufficient. Claims before June 19, 2022 lacked facts supporting a statute of limitations exception, the IEP implementation claim was too vague, and OAH lacks jurisdiction over civil rights claims.
- Order Determining Issue 4 in the Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's Issue 4 sufficiently pled because it alleged Antioch provided no services during Student's two-month hospitalization at the start of the 2023-2024 school year.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint against EPIC Charter School insufficient because it gave general conclusions about inadequate services and accommodations without identifying specific IEPs, services, or supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient and Allowing Student's Amended ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three issues never explained how IEP report discrepancies or delays denied a FAPE and it offered no proposed resolutions. OAH accepted Student's already-filed amended complaint.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not state Student's eligibility, a time frame, or how Student's school difficulties connected to any IDEA violation; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Clarifying Issue and Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's single-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Apple Valley's broader reading because the narrow placement claim gave the district enough information to respond, mediate, and defend at hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found 5 of Student's 18 issues sufficient and 13 insufficient, mainly because those issues gave no dates, time frames, IEPs, or goals. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Fortune's statute-of-limitations insufficiency challenge because the amendment relates back to the original filing date and Student need not plead facts supporting a limitations exception.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Jose's challenge to Issue Six and Proposed Resolution Seven, noting San Jose's simultaneous motion to dismiss showed it understood the issue well enough to defend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly raised a single issue: whether Rocklin will keep offering nurse-accompanied transportation to pediatric day care as Student moves to transitional kindergarten.
- Order Clarifying Issue and Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's single-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Fontana's broader reading and clarifying that the claim is narrowly about 30 minutes of weekly tutoring for receptive comprehension omitted from the April 22, 2024 IEP.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient. Some claims were too vague or untimely, with no facts supporting a statute-of-limitations exception, and Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Issue 1 of Third Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Issue 1 of Student's third amended complaint insufficient for the third time because it never identified what part of the IEP went unimplemented, relying only on Student's lack of progress.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Mount Shasta's notice of insufficiency was late, rejecting the District's unsupported theory that the 15-day deadline runs from an 'effective' rather than actual receipt date.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described facts about Student's education since fall 2022 but never stated the legal issues Burbank was alleged to have violated.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found three of Poway's four claims sufficiently pled but one insufficient because it challenged a failure to provide records within five days without identifying which records request was at issue.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, holding that notice pleading does not require listing specific IEPs, exact request dates, or every record sought when the District can learn those details from its own files.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Issues 1-3 sufficient but Issues 4-8 insufficient because they challenged a February 2022 IEP more than two years before filing and Student pleaded no facts supporting a statute-of-limitations exception.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Issue 1 of Student's second amended complaint insufficient because it never said what part of the February 24, 2022 IEP Escondido Union failed to implement, or how.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Issues in Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's three-sentence complaint insufficient as to non-expedited FAPE claims because it lacked a problem description and facts, but kept the expedited discipline claims and hearing dates in place.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because Coachella's insufficiency challenge relied on the complaint's legal analysis section and ignored the issue statement, which identified the issues and pled detailed facts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three problems lacked dates, the specific IEP involved, and other details, but denied Oakdale's request to dismiss and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Issues 2 and 5 of the Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Issues 2 and 5 insufficient because Student alleged no facts showing the May 2023 mental health assessment was improper and no facts supporting failure-to-implement claims before November 12, 2023.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found 12 of Student's issues against Sacramento City sufficiently pled but ruled Issue 1b, on prior written notice, insufficient because of confusing and inconsistent dates; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Issue 1 of Student's first amended complaint insufficient because it never identified which IEP provisions Escondido Union failed to implement; Issues 2 through 8 were sufficient.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found nine of ten issues in Parent's complaint sufficient but ruled Issue 3 insufficient because claims that Soquel acted out of 'hubris' and not in Student's 'best interest' state no IDEA violation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, holding that 17 pages of educational history gave Walnut Creek enough notice and that statute of limitations questions are not decided on a sufficiency challenge.
- Order Determining First Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient because all three issues lacked dates, the specific IEPs involved, and clear facts. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Brea Olinda's second insufficiency challenge because the amended complaint stated one issue, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Sierra Sands insufficient because all three issues lacked dates, specific IEPs, and facts showing a denial of FAPE, and the complaint proposed no resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Issues 1 through 6 insufficient as time-barred and limited Issues 7, 10, and 11 to the two-year period, because Student alleged no exception to the statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged Hart retaliated by failing to provide a qualified one-to-one aide, breaking the IEP, and proposed a clear fix.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's parent participation claim insufficient because its three and one-half lines named the claim but gave no facts, such as when Student became eligible for special education.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's single child find claim insufficient because it gave no timeframe, leaving Gilroy unable to tell whether Student sought to reach back to August 2020, beyond the two-year limitations period.
- Order Denying Request to Determine Sufficiency of Expedited Due Process ComplaintOAH denied Downey's sufficiency challenge to Student's expedited claim because issues subject to mandatory expedited hearing under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3) are exempt from sufficiency review.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint partly insufficient, cutting claims before March 19, 2022, because Student pled no specific facts of district misrepresentation or withholding, and finding the failure-to-implement issue too vague.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficiently PledOAH found Student's complaint against Fontana insufficiently pled because it named two different students, alleged no supporting facts for an inappropriate-program claim, and did not explain how missing records caused harm.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient despite inconsistent facts about which district served Student, because Antelope Valley's own arguments showed it understood the claims well enough to defend them.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all five of Student's claims insufficiently pled because the complaint lacked facts identifying which assessments, IEPs, services, missing team members, and records-request dates were at issue.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described two different students, with the facts about one and the legal issues and resolutions about another, making it vague and confusing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its assessment and IEP goal claims gave Salinas Union enough facts to respond, even though one alleged assessment deficiency appeared time-barred.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all seven claims because it identified the issues and gave South Pasadena enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient as to Issues One and Eight and any claims outside the two-year limitations period, but sufficient as to Issues Two through Seven.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found only Student's claim of inappropriate IEPs (Issue 2A) sufficient, because school-specific facts were alleged. Assessment, IEP implementation, and parental participation claims failed because they did not tie facts to each respondent.
- Order Finding Amended Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Alliance Kory Hunter Middle SchoolOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient as to Alliance, ruling that the assessment, unmet-needs, and remedy claims gave Alliance enough understanding of the issues, even without remedies split between the two agencies.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's child-find complaint sufficient, ruling that Glendale's own notice of insufficiency showed it understood the claim and that the extra facts it wanted are matters of proof for hearing.
- Order Finding Issue 1 Sufficient, and Issues 2 and 3 Insufficient, as to Alliance Collins Family College-Ready HighOAH found Student's Issue 1 sufficient against Alliance but Issues 2 and 3 insufficient, because the complaint alleged no facts tying Alliance to the assessment or frequency-band claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because each of its four issues on placement, goals, services, and home health instruction gave Garden Grove enough facts and time frames to prepare for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Centinela Valley insufficient because none of its issues identified specific IEPs, time periods, or supporting facts, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its 122 paragraphs of facts never set out specific issues, time periods, IEPs, placements, or services in dispute against Fresno or Clovis.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named two districts but alleged all six claims only against "the district" and included no facts describing the problem.
- Order Finding Issues 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Second Amended Complaint Sufficient and Issue 5 InsufficientOAH found four of Student's five issues sufficient on bullying, discipline removals, placement, and IEP meetings, but found Issue 5 insufficient because it alleged disability discrimination, which OAH cannot hear.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Inglewood insufficient because it gave no facts about Student's challenges, services, IEP dates, or the alleged violations, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient for claims on or after January 2, 2021, but found Issue 1 insufficient for earlier claims because Student did not allege an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's amended complaint sufficient because San Diego Unified filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after the amended complaint was deemed filed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Riverside's complaint defending its refusal to fund Parents' chosen occupational therapy IEE evaluator sufficient, ruling that detailed facts and legal argument are not required at the pleading stage.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all seven claims in Student's complaint insufficiently pled because none identified an IEP, specific facts, or how the alleged bullying, discipline, transfer, or retaliation denied Student a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Newhall's argument that issues needed specific IEP dates, defined terms, and time limits, because the complaint gave enough awareness of the issues to respond.
2023
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH found Epic Charter School's complaint sufficient because it identified its single claim, that the October 5, 2023 IEP offered a FAPE, with enough facts and a clear proposed resolution.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to El Monte Union High School DistrictOAH found all eight issues insufficiently pled against El Monte Union because the complaint lumped both districts together as "District" and alleged no facts tying El Monte Union to 2021-2023 events.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it detailed the IEP dates, the specific program deficiencies, and claims about implementation, IEP timing, and assessment, giving Oxnard enough information to respond.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint (Non-Expedited Issues) and Dismissing Non-Expedited IssuesOAH found Student's non-expedited claims against Tice Creek School and Walnut Creek Intermediate School insufficient and dismissed them because they stated only labels, such as bullying and retaliation, with no supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint (Expedited Issues)OAH deemed Student's expedited discipline claims sufficient because the IDEA's expedited hearing rules do not allow sufficiency challenges and there is not enough time for that process.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it offered no proposed resolutions, even though its facts were adequate, and gave Student 14 days to amend or face dismissal.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because 12 and a half pages of narrative never identified specific IDEA violations or when they occurred, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Non-Expedited Due Process Complaint Allegations SufficientOAH found Student's non-expedited issues sufficient, rejecting Sequoia's 'shotgun pleading' attack. Each issue was clear enough to prepare for hearing, and expedited disciplinary claims cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because both issues failed to specify the FAPE denials, time frames, and scope of assessment claims, but held the proposed resolutions adequate and allowed amendment within 14 days.
- Order Determining Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the issue with enough facts for Del Norte County to respond, and it proposed a well-defined resolution: placement at Brookings Harbor School District 17C with transportation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found eight of Student's ten claims sufficient but ruled the accommodations/assessment claim (Issue 3) and the regression claim (Issue 6) insufficient because they were confusing or lacked supporting facts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Is Sufficient in Part and Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on paraprofessional support, IEP implementation, behavior management, and paraprofessional qualification claims, but insufficient on other claims that were vague, cut off, or illegible; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Lake Tahoe filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after the complaint was filed, missing the deadline to challenge it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It identified specific assessment areas and unmet needs in academics, social skills, behavior, speech, occupational therapy, and auditory processing, giving Greenfield enough information to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Issues 7 and 9 against Campbell Union, because the district's argument that Student had no IEP was a merits challenge, not a pleading defect.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH rejected Campbell Union's insufficiency challenge to an expedited complaint because sufficiency challenges do not apply to expedited hearings. It also denied motions to dismiss for lack of service and to drop Morgan Hill.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to claims before October 16, 2021, because Student alleged violations back to 2019 but pled no facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Finding Amended Due Process Complaint Sufficient Against Larchmont Charter SchoolOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against Larchmont. Student alleged specific misrepresentations and withheld information that could extend the two-year statute of limitations, and whether it applies must be decided at hearing.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged no issues or facts, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that the statute of limitations exception claims and the Section 504/ADA civil rights issue were adequately pled. Whether those claims succeed is a question for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and denied Pleasanton's motion to dismiss, because a sufficiency challenge must be filed by itself and the 16 issues met IDEA's low pleading threshold.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's claims against Larchmont Charter insufficient for alleged violations before September 18, 2021, because Student pleaded no facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because each of its six issues tied its facts to the April 17, 2023 IEP, giving Rincon Valley Union enough notice to prepare its defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's seven-issue amended complaint against Granite Mountain Charter School sufficient and denied the charter's motion to dismiss without prejudice because it was not filed separately from the insufficiency notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because its two pages of broad grievances dating back to about 2010 set out no specific issues or supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because its two pages of laws and broad grievances stated no clear issues, time periods, or supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because it never said which of three respondents was responsible for Student's education in 2019 and 2020, and it stated no clear issues.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Options for YouthOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Options for Youth because a footnote tied each respondent's responsibility period to Student's enrollment dates and all three issues gave enough facts to prepare a defense.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss it, holding that Los Alamitos's argument that a privately placed Student had no right to extended school year services as stay put went to the merits.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Options for Youth because it never said when the charter school, rather than the district, was responsible for Student's education.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its 18-page narrative never clearly identified specific IDEA violations, leaving Menlo Park unable to tell what claims it had to defend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's proposed resolutions sufficient, rejecting Cabrillo Point Academy's challenge because the law does not require detailed or specific remedies and the academy cited no authority saying otherwise.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against San Diego Workforce sufficient despite typographical errors, because the complaint read as a whole stated understandable issues, supporting facts, and well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining the Due Process Complaint Is Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's issues one and two insufficient because they alleged 2020-2021 violations outside the two-year limitations period with no facts supporting an exception; issues three and four were sufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite naming three agencies together, holding Student bears the burden at hearing to prove which entity denied a FAPE and when.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it lumped claims against Hawthorne and the KIPP charter school together for the same periods without separate facts, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficiently PledOAH found Student's complaint against Elk Grove sufficiently pled, ruling that each issue gave enough facts for Elk Grove to respond and that disputes over evidence and causation belong at hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite typos and unhelpful case law, ruling that the pleading rules are read liberally and that every challenged issue described the problem with enough supporting facts.
- Order Finding Non-Expedited Issues Sufficiently Plead Against New Jerusalem Elementary School DistrictOAH found Student's non-expedited claims against New Jerusalem sufficient, because the complaint identified the issues and facts. A sufficiency challenge cannot be used to dispute whether the facts are accurate.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling it adequately described Parent's concerns about extended school year 2021 and 2022 services and placement and raised no claims outside the two-year limitations period.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain why Oakland Unified owed Student a FAPE in 2022-2023 after she graduated with a regular high school diploma in Spring 2022.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Sacramento City filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after being served and offered no evidence for its claimed later receipt date.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Sacramento City's claim that it was vague, because its four issues and supporting facts let the district respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 13-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Lake Tahoe's argument that notice pleading requires the date, recipient, and manner of each assessment and records request.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It challenged promotion from sixth to seventh grade, and Student alleged that the IEP team discussed grade retention, which makes it a possible special education issue for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint only partly sufficient, keeping five counseling, occupational therapy, and placement claims. A long timeline without enumerated issues left most claims too vague, and older claims appeared time-barred.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Palo Alto's notice of insufficiency because Student's complaint raised only expedited disciplinary issues, and the IDEA's expedited hearing timeline leaves no room for a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found one of Student's claims, a predetermination claim against Lincoln, insufficient because it never identified the ignored Parent request and buried thin facts under pages of legal summary; the remaining claims proceed.
- Order Determining Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Complaint SufficientOAH found Issues 2 through 5 of Student's complaint sufficient. The complaint identified the issues and gave Lammersville enough facts to respond, despite the district's wish for more detail and its settlement-waiver defense.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 11 of Student's 13 claims sufficiently pled but ruled two insufficient: a predetermination claim that never identified the ignored Parent request, and a regression claim that alleged no actual FAPE denial.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's complaint insufficient on extended school year and statute of limitations claims because it pled no supporting facts. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified 15 issues tied to specific, dated IEPs with enough facts for Downey to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining the Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Rosedale Union's complaint sufficient because its single issue, whether it may implement Student's April 28, 2023 IEP without Parents' consent, gave Student enough facts to respond.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three claims gave no school year, no clear problem description, and no supporting facts, and its remedy request for financial support and "justice" was not well-defined.
- Order Determining the Amended Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient because its single child find issue since 2015 gave Berkeley enough facts to respond, and its proposed resolution was well-defined.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused Pacific Coast Academy's statute-of-limitations dismissal request, because a notice of insufficiency cannot be used to raise a statute-of-limitations defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 32-page, 19-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Fremont Unified's challenge because the complaint and the district's own notice showed it had ample facts to prepare for hearing.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against both Glendora and the SELPA, because it described each agency's alleged responsibilities and gave enough facts on each issue for the respondents to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that its issues on ABA therapy, placement, services, accommodations, assessments, and goals gave Bonita enough facts to respond, with remaining ambiguities left for prehearing conference.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's entire complaint, Issues 1a through 1x, insufficient because it did not identify specific IEPs, assessments, dates, or facts, and several claims fell outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficient in Part and Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's complaint partly sufficient. Claims about the January and April 2021 IEPs were cut because they fell outside the two-year statute of limitations and no exception was alleged.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Berkeley filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, making the challenge untimely.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Claims about the IEPs and extended school year were written in the present tense, which showed current disputes, so exact IEP dates were not needed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three problems lacked facts showing what Paradise did to violate the IDEA, when it happened, and which named agency was responsible; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite Lake Tahoe's challenge, ruling that its 18 issues gave the district enough awareness of the claims, and that the confusing way they were listed could be fixed at the prehearing conference.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient: the May 2022 IEP placement claim was adequately pleaded, other claims were not, and a reimbursement remedy stated as a category without dollar amounts was enough.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it had no defined issues or claims, and its general statements that the district's program failed Student were vague, conclusory, and not tied to facts.
- Order Determining Complaint Is Sufficient in PartOAH found Student's assessment and IEP claims sufficient only from April 3, 2021 forward, because Student pled no facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations for earlier claims.
- Order Determining the Due Process Complaint Is Sufficient in PartOAH found Student's non-expedited claims insufficiently pled against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA because no facts tied the SELPA to Student's education. The challenge to the expedited removal claim was denied.
- Order Finding Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that all three problems gave Walnut Creek enough facts to respond. Statute of limitations and Section 504 jurisdiction questions cannot be decided on a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency in Part of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's failure-to-implement claim sufficient, but found the request for a comprehensive independent evaluation insufficient because it did not say which assessments were requested, when, or why.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Blanton Education Center, ruling that whether the school is a responsible agency, or whether the claim is premature, cannot be raised through a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Finding Amended Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to all three respondents. The complaint did not give dates, which school Student attended, which IEPs were at issue, or which agency each named person represented.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found self-represented Parents' complaint insufficient because its three FAPE claims were vague about time, the offers at issue, and supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Parents' complaint insufficient because its three FAPE claims were vague about which offers, time periods, and facts were at issue, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss IssuesOAH dismissed Student's claim that Sacramento City ignored a prior OAH order, and all discrimination and damages claims, for lack of jurisdiction, but found the IEP-implementation and manifestation-determination issues sufficient.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially Sufficient and Dismissing Issues One and TwoOAH dismissed two of Student's three issues after a third insufficient complaint, because Student's attorney twice ignored orders to plead dates, eligibility, and educational need. Only the vision-assessment claim goes to hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint as to Special Education Local Plan Area InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPA because it alleged no facts showing the SELPA was responsible for FAPE or involved in Student's IEP decisions.
- Order Determining Second Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient against San Diego Unified, ruling it identified the issues and facts clearly enough under the minimal special education pleading standard.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that a notice of insufficiency cannot be used to argue a settlement agreement bars the claims, only whether the district has enough information to defend itself.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's four-issue complaint against Sacramento City sufficient despite typos, redundancy, and one IEP outside the two-year limitations period, because each issue gave enough facts and a proposed resolution.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PledOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all five challenged issues, ruling they gave Salinas Union enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Twin Rivers filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after service and offered no sworn evidence that it received the complaint later.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying Without Prejudice in Part Newark's Request for ClarificationOAH corrected a typo in its earlier sufficiency order but declined to clarify the time periods in Student's Issue 3, leaving the scope of issues for the prehearing conference.
- Corrected Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Denying Student's Motion to Dismiss Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found eight of nine issues in Student's second amended complaint sufficient and Issue 4 too confusing to proceed. It refused Student's request to dismiss Newark Unified's timely notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Order Dismissing Non-Jurisdictional ClaimsOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against Crescent View because it stated a distinct issue, facts, and remedies, but dismissed Section 504, ADA, Section 1983, and Unruh claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Finding First Amended Due Process Complaint Insufficient; Notice of No Action on Motion to ContinueOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient because all three claims lacked facts tying the school's actions to special education eligibility or a FAPE. Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three claims about records changes, predetermination, and failure to assess lacked clear facts, dates, IEPs, and assessment areas; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Limit Issues and Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Manhattan Beach's motion to strike speech-language and educational therapy claims. It treated the motion as an untimely insufficiency challenge. OAH also denied Student's motion to consolidate a duplicative second case.
- Order Determining Issue Three of Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Issue Three of Student's second amended complaint insufficient and dismissed it because, after two chances to amend, it still alleged no facts showing a district misrepresentation that would extend the two-year deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's six-issue complaint sufficient. The ALJ held that missing IEP dates and disputes over whether Parent may choose school personnel are legal questions or prehearing matters, not pleading defects.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all four issues in Student's complaint insufficient because they did not identify the dates, school years, or IEPs involved, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Glendora but insufficient against the SELPA because it alleged no facts showing the SELPA provided services or was responsible for Student's education.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint mostly insufficient. Only some IEP implementation and goals claims survived, because the other issues lacked dates or clarity or raised retaliation claims outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Finding Amended Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on all 20 issues, holding that a casual narrative style was fine because each claim was clearly stated and backed by facts and proposed resolutions.
- Order Finding Issue 3 of Amended Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Issue 3 of Student's amended complaint insufficient as time-barred because Parents knew of the assessment failure in 2019-2020, and their trust in the District was not a misrepresentation or withholding of information.
2022
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Mission Vista Academy's complaint sufficient. The complaint seeks to defend its psychoeducational assessment against an independent educational evaluation request, and it gave Student enough facts to respond and attend mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied Sacramento's notice of insufficiency. The notice may have been untimely given fax service, and Student's complaint tied each issue to a specific IEP or school year and described the alleged deficits.
- Order Determining Complaint Sufficient and Notice of No Action on Alternative Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly raised whether San Dieguito denied a FAPE by not offering a placement after Excelsior closed. OAH refused to act on the bundled motion to dismiss.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Ross Valley filed its notice of insufficiency 16 days after being served by fax, missing the 15-day deadline; the intervening holiday did not extend the time.
- Order Determining First Amended Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient because each issue was vaguely titled, buried allegations without stating a clear claim, and contradicted Student's own statute of limitations statement.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Sacramento's demand for a dollar-for-dollar breakdown of a requested compensatory fund because the amount and type of remedies are matters of proof at hearing.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Second Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found 14 of 15 issues in Student's second amended complaint sufficient, but ruled the prior written notice claim insufficient because it gave no dates for Parent's placement requests.
- Order Denying Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Student's notice of insufficiency against El Dorado's expedited complaint because federal law makes no provision for sufficiency challenges in expedited hearings, which must start within 20 school days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's brief complaint sufficient because it identified the issues (test-related physical symptoms and difficulty processing math material) and gave enough facts for Castro Valley to respond and participate in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Irvine's argument that Issue One was overbroad, because the complaint described many specific claims and gave enough facts for Irvine to respond.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three vaguely titled claims buried sub-claims, gave no dates, and contradicted itself on whether it sought to reach beyond the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Mount Diablo's argument that two issues lacked time frames, because the complaint as a whole showed the claims arose within the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint mostly sufficient, but held claims in Issue One arising before September 26, 2020 insufficiently pled because Student gave no basis for extending the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Amended Complaint Sufficient in Part and Insufficient in PartOAH found nine issues in Student's amended complaint insufficient because the complaint gave conflicting statements about whether it sought claims older than the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite some ambiguity, because it identified the issues and gave San Juan Unified enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found most of Student's 27 issues against Dry Creek sufficiently pled. It found ten issues insufficient as vague, duplicative, or not IDEA claims, and limited claims to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Denying Motion for ClarificationOAH denied Student's motion to clarify an issue in his complaint because San Diego never filed a timely notice of insufficiency, and the complaint's body already explained the issue.
- Order Determining Amended Due Process Complaint Insufficient and Denying Motion to Dismiss, as MootOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it relied on facts from the superseded original complaint and repeated previously insufficient issues, and allowed a second amendment within 14 days.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied San Juan's notice of insufficiency without prejudice because it challenged Student's amended complaint, which was not the operative complaint after OAH denied Student's motion to amend.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its claims about the May 2022 IEP's placement, occupational therapy, and speech services gave Downey enough facts to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 12 claims arising on or after August 24, 2020, sufficient, but found earlier allegations insufficient because Student did not plead any basis for extending the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Dismissing Complaint for Failure to File an Amended Complaint After Determination of InsufficiencyOAH dismissed Student's due process complaint because Parent never filed an amended complaint after it was found insufficient; her later filings did not state issues and facts or fix the deficiencies.
- Order Determining Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH limited Student's claims to those arising on or after August 24, 2020, because the complaint pleaded no statute-of-limitations exception, but found the six specifically challenged issues sufficiently pleaded.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Newman-Crows Landing's challenge because the 10 claims identified the issues and gave enough facts for the district to respond and participate in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 13 of Student's 16 issues insufficiently pled against San Francisco because they were vague, inconsistent, or reached back years without any basis for extending the statute of limitations; three issues may proceed.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying District's Request for Dismissal as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never said which Long Beach school or program Student attended, the dates of enrollment, or the basis for enrollment, and denied Long Beach's dismissal motion as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its eight numbered sentences mixed possible claims and facts without enough supporting detail for Elk Grove to understand the issues, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its mix of IEP quotations and unclear comments, covering three years without specific IEPs or dates, failed to describe the problems and facts clearly.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Un-Expedited Issues 1 and 3 and Denying Notice of Insufficiency as to Expedited Issue 2OAH found Student's IEP-implementation and hostile-environment claims sufficient, and refused to test the sufficiency of the discipline claim because frequent suspensions over 10 days state an expedited change-of-placement claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because unusual bracket formatting made it unintelligible, leaving Greenfield and Kern County unable to tell what claims, facts, time periods, or agency each issue concerned.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave Monterey Peninsula enough facts to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found 12 of Student's 17 issues insufficient because of confusing timeframes, claims predating eligibility, wrong gender references, and a different district named, while five issues were sufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found five of Student's eleven issues sufficient but ruled six issues insufficient because they reached back more than two years without facts supporting an exception to the statute of limitations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues One and Two insufficient for claims before August 8, 2020, because Student pled no statute-of-limitations exception. Issues Three and Four were found sufficient, and San Juan's enrollment-based challenge was rejected as a factual dispute.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Conejo filed its notice of insufficiency 16 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day deadline without explanation.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found parts of Student's Issues 1, 2, 3 and 5 insufficient because claims from March 1 through July 7, 2020, fell outside the two-year statute of limitations and no exception was alleged.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Palo Alto Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Palo Alto because Palo Alto never provided Student special education services, and a revoked interdistrict transfer is not a matter OAH can hear.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified two FAPE claims about distance-learning supports and parent participation with enough facts for Sacramento to respond, even without specific dates for each wrong.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues One, Three, and Four sufficient only from July 10, 2020 forward, and found Issues Two and Five insufficient. Student pleaded no exception to the two-year statute of limitations, and those two issues lacked dates and supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Capistrano Unified filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, and refused to consider the district's combined motion to dismiss.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found five of Student's ten issues insufficient because they reached back more than two years without any facts explaining why the statute of limitations should be extended.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave Keiller enough facts to respond; whether the independent evaluation claim has merit is for the hearing, not a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Apple Valley's challenge because its statute-of-limitations arguments require factual findings that cannot be made at the sufficiency stage.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient as to Issue TwoOAH found Student's overdue-triennial-evaluation claim sufficient. It found the catch-all 'failed to provide FAPE at all times' claim insufficient because it pled no facts, was overbroad, and gave no timeframe.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find claim sufficiently pled but ruled the assessment, aide, and placement claims insufficient because they gave no time period, IEPs, or timing of the alleged failure to assess.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it alleged San Dieguito withheld and heavily redacted educational records in 2022, impeding Parent's participation in IEP decision-making. OAH declined to rule on the district's jurisdiction argument.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all ten issues in Student's complaint against Sacramento City insufficient. The complaint was vague, contradicted itself on eligibility, lacked supporting facts, and did not identify which IEPs were challenged.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found part of Student's first issue insufficient because the complaint pled no facts about pandemic-related school closures or the period from June 1, 2020, through the 2020-2021 school year.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's First Amended Complaint insufficient because it repeated the original complaint line by line and never described the problems or facts relating to El Dorado County Charter SELPA.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because Parent knew of Student's low grades and poor behavior years earlier, the claims fell outside the two-year statute of limitations, and no exception was alleged.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found an adult self-represented Student's complaint insufficient because its single problem lacked enough facts to explain how the IDEA was violated, and gave him 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 8 of Student's 28 issues sufficient and 20 insufficient, mostly because the complaint did not identify specific IEP dates or give facts explaining what went wrong.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found two of Student's three issues insufficient because they lacked timeframes and did not identify the disabilities, services, or IEP offers at issue. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Campbell's argument that it was an improper party because it is not responsible for Student's FAPE, since a sufficiency challenge cannot attack the merits.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the problems and proposed remedies; Cabrillo's argument that the claims require enforcing a settlement agreement goes to jurisdiction, not sufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Hollister's claim that it was defective for not naming another district, because which agency owed Student a FAPE is a factual dispute and a possible defense.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Student's Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three claims lacked facts on what was wrong with the March 2021 IEP, the basis for compensatory services, and any procedural or substantive violations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it used "the District," "the Charter," and "MSASA" interchangeably and never made clear which allegations were aimed at Magnolia Science Academy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Irvine's challenge to a failure-to-assess claim, because alleging Irvine did not comprehensively assess Student over three named school years gave adequate notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Issue One and Insufficiency of Issue Two of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child-find issue sufficiently pled but ruled the compensatory education claim insufficient because compensatory education is a remedy, not an issue, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Five pages of facts supported three clearly identified issues, and the proposed resolutions were well defined. OAH also refused to consider a motion to dismiss bundled into the insufficiency notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because William S. Hart filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, making the challenge untimely.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it named two school years and specific FAPE failures, leaving Modesto's question about which agency was responsible for decision at hearing.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its 20 pages recited Student's educational history without identifying specific claims, leaving Downey and the judge to guess how FAPE was denied.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of First Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. Student did not need to list each untranslated document, and Rowland's statute of limitations and distance learning arguments went to the merits, not pleading sufficiency.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Mountain View-Whisman's demand for more detail on which services should have been offered, because the complaint identified the issues and facts well enough to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not name Student's school of attendance and was inconsistent about the time period at issue; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Newman-Crows Landing Unified's arguments about a missing time period, statute of limitations, and jurisdiction, because the complaint gave enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPA because it alleged no facts showing SELPA was responsible for Student's FAPE or violated special education law.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's seven-claim complaint sufficient and declined to rule on Ventura Unified's motion to dismiss because it was improperly combined with the notice of insufficiency in one filing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because all three issues, the supporting facts, and the proposed resolutions gave Davis enough understanding to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Burbank's challenge to the reimbursement claim for fall 2021, because the complaint gave enough facts for Burbank to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Burbank's challenge that it lacked facts supporting reimbursement for fall 2021, because the complaint gave enough information to respond and prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Placer County SELPA because it alleged no facts showing SELPA was responsible for Student's FAPE or violated special education law, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because both health-related issues were too vague for Fallbrook to know which part of Student's program was challenged, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found six of Student's eight claims against Rowland Unified insufficient because the complaint never said which IEPs, school years, or time periods the alleged violations covered; translation and distance-learning claims survived.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all seven issues in Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that Student did not have to plead facts explaining why claims older than two years should survive the statute of limitations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and declined to decide Morongo's statute of limitations argument, holding that whether the limitations period is tolled cannot be resolved through a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied Madera County Superintendent of Schools' sufficiency challenge because Student's complaint raised expedited issues, and the IDEA provides no way to challenge the sufficiency of an expedited complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Juan's statute-of-limitations argument, and barred a non-California-licensed attorney from signing filings for Student.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Charter School's argument that it lacked dates and details about Parents' assessment request, because it identified four issues with enough facts to respond.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it quoted specific IEP documents and gave Roseville enough facts about each of four claims to respond, despite referencing school years rather than IEP dates.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the claims, gave enough facts for the District to respond, and stated remedies. OAH refused to act on a motion to dismiss filed in the same document.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its three claims on assessment, IEP goals and services, and parent participation gave Oak Grove enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three issues lacked facts, dates, and an explanation of how Inglewood violated the IDEA or state special education law; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described its problems and proposed resolutions only by pointing to documents "uploaded for this case" that were never filed with OAH.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Insufficient and Deeming Motion to Dismiss Issue One MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three issues and proposed resolutions lacked facts tying them to IDEA claims, and deemed New Haven Unified's motion to dismiss Issue 1 moot.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Ventura filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, making the challenge untimely.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficient as to Pomona Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Pomona, holding that the district's claim that Student moved into foster care outside its boundaries is a possible defense, not a pleading defect.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found East Side Union High's complaint sufficient because it clearly described the November 2021 IEP offer of a nonpublic school placement and asked OAH to find that the offer provides a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's seven-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Roseville's challenge because it gave enough facts and time frames on distance learning, assessment, IEP, and placement claims for the District to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because the claim that San Diego failed to provide the IEP-required school bus aide since November 2021 gave the district enough notice to prepare.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it did not explain why California Connections Academy was responsible for Student's education or give facts about the alleged problems.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient only because it left out Student's residence address, even though the three issues were pled well enough to give San Diego notice.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Grossmont Union High School DistrictOAH found the complaint insufficient against Grossmont because it did not plead residency facts or details of Grossmont's alleged IEP offer, though it adequately alleged the court-appointed educational rights holder's authority.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its single issue, Bellflower's alleged failure to meet transition needs since January 2020, was supported by facts that let the district respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Second Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient because its single claim, that the SELPA gave no prior written notice denying rehabilitation counseling before exiting Student from special education, gave adequate notice.
- Order Of Determination Of Sufficiency Of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it did not explain why El Dorado SELPA was responsible for Student's education or describe the problem and supporting facts. Student may amend again.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint Regarding Issue 5OAH found Student's Issue 5 against Elk Grove sufficient, because even minimal facts about the May 2021 distance-learning IEP let the district respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of First Amended Due Process Complaint and Deeming Second Amended Complaint FiledOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient because it named only a SELPA, did not explain why the SELPA was responsible, and gave no problem description or facts.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it gave no coherent problem description or facts, named no school district, and did not explain why the SELPA was responsible for Student's education.
2021
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not coherently describe a problem, gave no facts, named no school district, and did not explain why the SELPA was responsible.
- Order Determining Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint partly sufficient: claims on goals, placement, transportation duration, and four implementation areas may proceed, but failure-to-assess and vague 'other services' claims lacked required specifics.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described no coherent problem, gave no facts, named no school district, and did not explain why the SELPA was responsible for Student's education.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to San Joaquin County Office of EducationOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient as to San Joaquin County Office of Education because its seven issues and supporting facts let San Joaquin respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Amend Complaint and Finding Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found River Springs Charter's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that Student's question about which placement offer was at issue is factual and must be decided at hearing.
- Order of Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly identified the August 2020 IEP, despite a typo in its date, and gave Sequoia enough facts to respond and prepare for resolution and mediation.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's detailed 56-page complaint sufficient, ruling that Tracy's requests for staff-specific details belong at the resolution session and its statute of limitations argument belongs in a motion to dismiss.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficient as to Milpitas Unified School DistrictOAH found a self-represented Parent's complaint sufficient against Milpitas, because it clearly alleged the district's transportation failures kept Student from safely joining after-school basketball and stated defined remedies.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found a self-represented Parent's complaint sufficient because, read as a whole, it lists specific acts, dates, names, and IEPs that let Fremont respond.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficient as to River SpringsOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to River Springs because its one claim against the charter school, a failure to properly assess, was clearly stated, even though another claim named an unjoined district.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Murrieta Valley's complaint sufficient because it stated the basis for its request to assess Student: the district had not assessed Student within the past three years.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficient as to San Joaquin County Office of EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to San Joaquin County Office of Education because the three issues naming it stated claims only against Manteca, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify which IEPs were predetermined or what parental input was ignored, and raised accountability claims outside OAH's jurisdiction; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining the Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found four settlement-breach issues sufficient but four other issues insufficient because Student did not identify the IEP, time period, or whether the claims arose after the March 2021 settlement.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Los Angeles County Charter Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Los Angeles County Charter SELPA because it alleged no facts showing the SELPA's involvement in the charter school's failure to provide adaptive physical education.
- Order of Determination of Partial Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's three settlement-related placement and services claims sufficient, but found insufficient the claims about recording an IEP meeting (no date given) and canceling the settlement agreement.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found all three of Student's issues sufficiently pleaded, holding that Assurance's statute of limitations argument on the triennial assessment claim belongs in a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining Second Amended Due Process Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient, holding that Issue Two, though somewhat disjointed, gave California Connections enough awareness of the claim that it wrongly exited Student from special education.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Cupertino because it did not clearly say which district was responsible for which facts and violations, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Los Angeles's challenge because each issue identified specific unassessed areas, unaddressed needs, missing goals, required services, and procedural violations with enough facts to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It rejected Sonoma Valley's argument that Student was never a district resident, because the complaint alleged Student was enrolled in and served by the district.
- Order Finding Tamalpais Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Tamalpais's due process complaint sufficient because it clearly stated two FAPE claims, one on its IEP offer and one on keeping Student's placement after Parent's partial consent revocations, with enough facts for Student to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's distance-learning claim and request for reimbursement of out-of-pocket medical costs sufficient. The complaint's incorporated facts supplied the time period, and the law does not require facts supporting a proposed remedy.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite San Juan's challenge, because it was limited to two school years and identified specific evaluation, IEP, and FAPE issues with enough facts to respond.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against California School for the Deaf, Riverside. The complaint's claims and proposed resolutions targeted Redlands Unified, the district of residence, which was never named as a party.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never said why or how Glendale's June 9, 2021 IEP offer for 2021-2022 denied Student a FAPE, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Issues Two, Three, and Four of the Amended Due Process Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found Issue One of Student's amended complaint sufficient but Issues Two, Three, and Four insufficient because they lacked facts showing who acted, what went wrong, and why.
- Order Partially Granting Notice of Insufficiency of Complaint and Granting Leave to Amend as to Issue ThreeOAH found Student's issues on a late psychoeducational assessment and an unanswered IEE request sufficiently pled, but found the inadequate-services claim insufficient because it did not say which services were missing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's issue seven sufficient because it alleged Elk Grove failed to address regression in several areas caused by distance learning from March 2020 to filing, giving the district adequate notice.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Ocean View's insufficiency challenge, finding Student's claim that the District failed to provide one-to-one teacher support during COVID-19 distance learning was pled with enough facts and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 5 of Student's 15 claims sufficient and 10 insufficient. Many claims failed to identify the IEPs or time periods at issue, and some conflicted with Student's own statement that 2020-2021 claims were settled and waived.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its one issue listed civil rights violations, negligence, bullying, and defamation with no facts or link to special education, and the proposed resolution was unclear.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's only remaining issue insufficiently pleaded because the complaint did not identify which IEP was challenged or how it denied FAPE, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the El Dorado Charter SELPA because it alleged only jurisdictional conclusions, with no facts showing anything SELPA did or failed to do.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form-template complaint sufficient because it alleged Capistrano failed to implement Student's February 2020 IEP by not providing in-person instruction during COVID-19 school closures.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that Poway changed Student's placement to in-home and moved services online during the 2020 school closures, without notice or Parent consent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Notice of No Action on Stay PutOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the challenged IEPs and gave enough facts for San Diego to respond. OAH took no stay put action because Student never filed a stay put motion.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite its template-style format, because it clearly alleged Capistrano failed to implement Student's IEP by moving instruction and services to an in-home program.
- Order of Determination of Partial Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint only partly sufficient. Placement and related-services claims may proceed, but the assessment, goals, accommodations, extended school year, and procedural claims were too vague and template-like.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly described the district's failure to give in-person IEP services starting in March 2020. OAH also barred an out-of-state attorney from signing filings.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Dismissing Placer County Children's System of Care as a PartyOAH dismissed Placer County Children's System of Care from Student's case without leave to amend. The county child welfare agency's group home placements were not IDEA educational placements, and Student conceded it was not responsible for special education.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Notice of No Action on Service of Process or Stay PutOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified issues about changes to Student's IEP and placement with enough facts for Berryessa to respond. OAH took no action on service or stay put because no motions were filed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found Student's COVID-19 IEP implementation complaint sufficient, rejecting Hesperia's challenges that it was a form complaint and was improperly served by email.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite Los Angeles receiving a blank form, because the filed complaint clearly stated claims about missing aide supervision during breaks and transportation removed without notice.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's sparse complaint sufficient because it identified four claims about Burbank's March 2020 switch to in-home instruction and failure to implement two IEPs, with facts and proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified two school-year FAPE claims with enough facts about assessments, IEP content, placement, services, and procedural violations for Los Angeles to respond.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Greater Anaheim Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Greater Anaheim SELPA because its 22 pages of facts described only Centralia's actions, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found most of Student's complaint insufficient because it read like a template of vague, fact-free allegations that could apply to any student. Only the child find claims were sufficiently pled.
- Order Finding Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on both issues because it identified the problems and gave Moraga enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Finding Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's third due process complaint in a month insufficient because its three claims could not be understood, lacked dates and facts, and did not explain how Bonita denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of the Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that a misnumbered third issue was only a typographical error and that all three claims gave Los Angeles Unified enough facts to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave Los Angeles Unified enough facts to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
- Order Finding Issues 6, 7 and 9 of the Complaint Insufficiently PleadedOAH found Issues 3, 4, 5 and 8 sufficient but Issues 6, 7 and 9 insufficient because Student only copied IEP goals and gave no facts about why goals were inappropriate or how Student regressed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It identified the assessment, consent, and FAPE claims with enough facts for Valley Oaks to respond, and its loosely defined proposed resolutions still met the legal standard.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child-find claim against Moraga sufficient but Student's second claim insufficient, because facts about Student's transition from residential treatment did not state any clear issue; Student may amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because none of its three problems explained how San Diego's alleged failures affected Student's identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Finding Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a cookie-cutter pleading of general conclusions. It did not say which disability areas went unassessed or which IEPs and IEP components were challenged.
- Order Finding Complaint InsufficientOAH found an adult Student's complaint insufficient because its two short claims lacked complete sentences, punctuation, and dates, but gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order Finding Complaint InsufficientOAH found an adult Student's complaint against Bonita insufficient because its two short claims lacked complete sentences, punctuation, and dates, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient: despite relying heavily on a 2017 assessment and making vague allegations, it specifically described the services Student needed and Los Angeles did not offer.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to California Department of EducationOAH found Student's claim against the California Department of Education insufficient. It alleged only that CDE failed to ensure procedures for resolving interagency disputes, not that CDE owed Student a FAPE or proposed any change.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it made no allegations against SELPA, the only named respondent, and instead described only actions by Language Academy staff; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described South San Francisco's alleged failure to offer appropriate placement, instruction, and services for a child with autism and speech impairment, with facts and proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 37-page, eight-claim complaint sufficient, rejecting Mt. Diablo's demand for more detail on statute-of-limitations exceptions because the complaint gave enough awareness of the issues to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to San Diego County Office of EducationOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient as to San Diego County Office of Education because it alleged the county failed to identify, assess, and serve Student while managing residential treatment placements.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Salinas's arguments that missing dates and overlapping issues made issues four and five insufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its issues were vague, duplicative, and contradictory and lacked supporting facts. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it only sought to extend a prior settlement's compensatory-services deadline without alleging how San Diego denied a FAPE, and denied the district's motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. All three issues, covering vague IEP supports, failure to implement and monitor the IEP during distance learning, missed absenteeism notice, and an improperly staffed IEP meeting, gave San Diego enough facts to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its predetermination and least-restrictive-environment claims about a segregated preschool placement gave Garden Grove enough notice to respond, and the IDEA does not require the extra details the district listed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. A missing digit in the child find timeline did not make the claim vague, because the only possible reading was September 2019 to September 2, 2020.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to San Diego Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against San Diego Unified. It clearly alleged the district failed to implement Student's IEP and provide any services after Student began living within its boundaries.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Grossmont Union High School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Grossmont because it described the failure to implement the IEP and provide services, with enough facts for Grossmont to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to San Diego County Office of EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to San Diego County Office of Education because it alleged no facts showing the county office was involved in Student's education or services.
- Order Finding Amended Complaint Insufficiently Pled as to San Diego County Office of Education and Denying Motion to Dismiss Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient against SDCOE because it alleged no facts showing the county office was involved in Student's identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Amended Complaint Insufficiently Pled as to North Coastal Consortium for Special Education and Denying Student's Motion for Reconsideration as MootOAH dismissed Student's claims against the North Coastal Consortium SELPA without further leave to amend. The amended complaint again failed to allege facts showing the SELPA, beyond its oversight role, was responsible for Student's education.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficiently pled claims reaching back to 2012-2013, because Student alleged specific district misrepresentations about progress and withholding of records that kept Parents from filing on time.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient: it did not need to name a specific IEP because it covered a defined time period, and it alleged a statute-of-limitations exception.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its nine issues identified the challenged IEPs and the alleged instruction and goal failures, and it gave specific proposed resolutions for each issue.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's non-expedited claims sufficient and refused to review the expedited claim, because the IDEA provides no notice-of-insufficiency process for expedited hearings.
- Order Finding Complaint Insufficiently Pled as to North Coastal Consortium for Special EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to North Coastal Consortium because it alleged only duties owed to member districts, not any involvement in Student's own identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE.
- Order Granting Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Hacienda La Puente Unified because it repeatedly blamed an undefined "District" and never said when Student attended each of the two named districts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Lodi insufficient because its 13 pages were mostly boilerplate law. It gave no facts on when or how FAPE was denied. Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found San Jose's complaint sufficient after the district filed a readable reformatted copy, fixing the formatting problem that prompted Student's insufficiency notice.
- Order Finding Issue 3 of Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's non-expedited FAPE claim (Issue 3) sufficient because it gave Redlands and East Valley SELPA enough facts about the failed placement and hospital confinement to respond and prepare.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently Pled Against Lake Tahoe, and Insufficiently Pled Against Tahoe/Alpine SELPAOAH found Student's 46 claims sufficiently pled against Lake Tahoe but insufficient against Tahoe/Alpine SELPA, because the complaint alleged no specific SELPA actions or inactions that denied Student a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Ukiah's claim that the procedural-violation issue was too vague, because each issue listed supporting facts and the complaint included proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issue One sufficient against Santa Clara but Issues Two and Three insufficient as to Santa Clara because the complaint alleged no facts about its role in those school years.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Etiwanda enough notice of predetermination and failure-to-implement-IEE claims, and that statute of limitations arguments do not belong in a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all five sub-issues relied on generalities and never identified the specific IEPs, assessments, needs, or dates at issue. Student has 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because West Contra Costa filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, making the challenge untimely.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Enterprise's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Student's argument that lack of parental consent to an initial IEP makes a FAPE claim insufficiently pled, because that is a jurisdiction question, not a pleading one.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all three of Student's issues insufficient because they did not give IEP dates, time periods, or supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's 27-page complaint insufficient because it called both respondents "District" and never said whether each fact or claim applied to Ventura, Rio, or both.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite few facts and grammatical errors, because it gave Norwalk-La Mirada enough notice of the predetermination and one-to-one tutoring claims to respond.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found both issues in Student's complaint insufficient because they gave no dates, school years, or specific IEPs, and Issue Two proposed no resolution; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient, in PartOAH found Issue 7 of Student's complaint insufficient because it challenged Turlock's motives for requesting a February 2021 IEP meeting but gave no supporting facts and no proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Canyon View School sufficient because each issue gave the nonpublic school enough notice of the claims. It declined to rule on a consolidation request improperly combined with the insufficiency notice.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found two of Student's three issues insufficient because they did not say which IEPs were challenged and reached back past the two-year limit without pleading an exception. Larchmont's claim that it was not responsible was rejected.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find claims reaching back to 2016-2017 sufficiently pled. The complaint explained why the two-year statute of limitations should not bar them, starting with a May 2017 IEP meeting.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Mt. Diablo's claim that it was vague as to time, because it clearly covered the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years and listed specific missing services.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Tracy sufficient because its seven issues and supporting facts let Tracy respond and take part in resolution and mediation, and its proposed resolutions were well defined.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find and eligibility claims sufficient but ruled the parent-participation claim insufficient, because it did not explain how a Section 504 meeting related to a denial of FAPE under the IDEA.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado County Charter SELPA because all three issues and the facts targeted only the charter school, with no specific allegations against the SELPA.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify which independent evaluations were blocked, who the evaluators were, or what District conditions prevented the evaluations from being completed.
- Order of Determination of Partial Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found three of Student's six issues sufficient, on study skills removal, consent, and disclosure. It found the punitive-conduct, least restrictive environment, and attorney-interference claims insufficient for lack of facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint challenging Oakland's 2018 triennial and January 2019 psychoeducational assessments sufficient because it described the problem, gave supporting facts, and proposed a new triennial evaluation.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denial of Motions to Dismiss Parties as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Acton-Agua Dulce and El Dorado SELPA because it alleged only their oversight roles over the charter school, not their actual involvement in Student's education.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient: the records and child find claims may proceed, but claims before January 11, 2019 lacked specific facts supporting an exception to the two-year limitations period.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's First Amended Complaint sufficient, including the statute of limitations claim and Issues One through Six, because each gave specific school years, dates, and supporting facts.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently Pled as to Capistrano Unified, and Insufficiently Pled as to SELPAOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Capistrano Unified but insufficient against its single-district SELPA, because Student alleged no facts showing the SELPA was involved in decisions about Student's education.
- Order Denying Request for a More Definite AnswerOAH denied Student's request to force Bellflower to file a more definite answer, finding no legal authority to challenge the sufficiency of a district's response, as opposed to a missing response.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's one-sentence complaint insufficient because it gave Los Angeles no facts explaining why its program since July 1, 2020 denied FAPE, but allowed an amended complaint within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Guadalupe Union's challenge because the six issues, despite a lengthy factual history, gave the district enough notice of the claims, dates, and proposed resolutions.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficient as to Lancaster School DistrictOAH found Student's IDEA claim sufficient against Lancaster because it identified the issues and gave enough facts for Lancaster to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's child find claim and statute of limitations allegation sufficient, but found the safe-environment and mental health issue insufficient because it gave no time period for most alleged violations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite Rialto's statute-of-limitations objection, because it clearly alleged FAPE denial and failure to identify and assess during 2014-2015.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Long Beach filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, and the complaint would have been sufficient anyway.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient: read as a whole, it adequately alleges Santa Ana denied a FAPE by discontinuing speech services, but any other issues are insufficiently pled.
2020
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Evergreen insufficient because all three problems and the proposed resolutions lacked facts, time periods, and specifics, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Redding School District; Denying Motion to Dismiss as Not Filed as a Separate MotionOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Redding because it did not say what Redding did or tie its claims to a FAPE issue. OAH refused to consider Redding's motion to dismiss because it was combined with the notice.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issue One sufficient but Issues Two through Six insufficient because Student did not tie dates, people, or events to the claimed exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Lake Tahoe Unified and Tahoe Alpine SELPA enough facts about assessment, behavior, goals, placement, and procedural claims to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Shasta County SELPAOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Shasta County SELPA because it gave no facts showing how the SELPA was responsible for Student's education or placement; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its three issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions gave San Francisco Unified enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint Sufficiently PledOAH found Issues 1 through 4 of Student's complaint sufficiently pled because they gave Anaheim enough facts to understand the claims, and declined to rule on a motion to dismiss combined in the same filing.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient as to North Coastal Consortium and Sufficient as to San Dieguito Union High School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to North Coastal Consortium, a special education local plan area, because it alleged no facts showing the Consortium was responsible for Student's education, but sufficient as to San Dieguito.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified assessment and service failures with enough facts and proposed resolutions for Kern HSD to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it laid out three issues with sub-issues, a time frame, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions, enough for Los Angeles Unified to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH rejected Los Angeles's insufficiency challenge, finding Student's 34-page complaint gave enough facts, issues, and proposed resolutions for the District to prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite sparse facts and typographical errors, because its two FAPE issues and private school reimbursement request gave San Diego enough notice to respond and prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Grossmont's argument that it is not the responsible district, based on the conservator's residency, belongs in a separate motion to dismiss, not a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found ten of Elk Grove's eleven challenged issues sufficient but ruled Issue 9 insufficient because Student did not identify the specific requests, dates, or topics needing prior written notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient. Student fixed earlier defects by adding specific facts about an October 2020 IEP, which let Santa Rosa Academy understand and respond to the three claims.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint insufficient because the handwritten additions referred only to a Section 504 plan and a trespass notice, not to special education, IEPs, or FAPE under the IDEA.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint insufficient because Parent's handwritten notes about a trespass notice left it unclear what IDEA claim was being made; Student may file a third amended complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient again because all three issues still lacked facts about special education, eligibility, or FAPE, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint against Santa Rosa Academy insufficient again because all three issues repeated earlier deficient claims and did not state facts about special education or a free appropriate public education.
- Order Finding Amended Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it mostly alleged privacy, civil rights, defamation, and retaliation claims against Parent, without facts showing how Santa Rosa Academy affected Student's education.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Gilroy and Campbell Union, holding it gave clear notice of the claims and that a footnote reserving unlisted violations did not make it vague.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against El Dorado County Charter SELPA, rejecting the SELPA's argument that the allegations described only the charter school's conduct and not its own.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against North Coastal Consortium, rejecting its argument that allegations referring to "district" targeted only Rancho Santa Fe and that more factual detail was required.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Santa Rosa Academy insufficient because its three issues focused on ADA, HIPAA, Brown Act, public records, and defamation claims without facts tying them to Student's special education.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Santa Rosa Academy insufficient because all three issues lacked specific facts about any IEP, services, or time period and mainly raised ADA, Brown Act, and other non-IDEA claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three issues, which focused on school board conduct and retaliation against Parent, did not explain how Santa Rosa Academy denied Student a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Even though it sometimes called both River Springs and the non-party Riverside Unified "District," only River Springs was named, so the claims could only be read as against it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because LAUSD's insufficiency notice was filed after the 5:00 PM deadline and the complaint gave enough facts on both issues to let LAUSD respond.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described failures to assess, offer appropriate IEPs, and provide placement and services over three school years, with detailed facts and proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint seeking in-person small-cohort instruction instead of distance learning sufficient, ruling that Woodland's argument that the remedy was outside OAH's jurisdiction does not bear on sufficiency.
- Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint and Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found two of Student's three issues sufficient but ruled the home-hospital materials claim insufficient because it did not tie the problem to an IEP or FAPE. OAH also denied an unsupported amended filing.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because neither issue named a time period or a specific IEP, and the discrimination claim had no supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PledOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Although it quoted an assessment report at length, the issue headings clearly stated which violations occurred in which school year and what program components were missing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could apply to any child and named no specific IEP or services. Any amended complaint must be filed by California-licensed counsel or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that could apply to any child. OAH also ruled that the out-of-state attorneys who filed it were not authorized to practice in California.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting San Jose's challenge to three child find and FAPE issues because the facts alleged gave the district enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could describe any child in any district, and ordered that any amended complaint be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form complaint with no facts specific to Student, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that did not identify the IEP or services in dispute, and it required any amended complaint to be filed by California-licensed counsel or Parent.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it omitted Student's school, never clearly named Escondido as respondent, and used generic allegations that could apply to any child; leave to amend granted.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that could apply to any child. It required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that could apply to any child, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that could apply to any child, and it required any amended complaint to come from a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it did not identify the IEP or services in dispute. Any amended complaint must come from a California-licensed attorney or from Parent directly.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; and Order Rescheduling Order to Show Cause HearingOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that could apply to any child. It required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it was generic and not specific to Student, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading. It did not identify Student's IEP or services and could have been filed for any child in any district.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form complaint that could apply to any child, and ordered any amendment be filed by a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form complaint that did not name the IEP or services at issue, and required any amended complaint to come from a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could apply to any child, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form complaint that did not identify the IEP or the missed services, and it required any amended complaint to come from a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form complaint that did not identify the IEP or missed services, and required any amended complaint to come from a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form that could fit any child, and ordered any amended complaint filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that did not identify the IEP or services at issue. OAH also found the filing attorneys were not licensed in California.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint against Clovis insufficient because it was generic and not specific to Student, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it did not identify the IEP or services in dispute, and ruled the filing attorneys were not authorized to practice law in California.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form complaint that did not identify the IEP or the missed services. It ordered any amended complaint filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could apply to any child. It also ruled the filing attorneys were not authorized to practice law in California.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that did not identify the IEP or services in dispute. It also ruled the filing attorneys were not authorized to practice in California.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could describe any child in any district. It ordered any amended complaint filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint against Poway insufficient because it was generic and did not identify the IEP or services in dispute. Any amendment must be filed by a California-licensed attorney or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it never identified the IEP or services in dispute. It also ruled the out-of-state attorneys who filed it were not authorized to practice in California.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic form pleading that did not identify Student's IEP or the services in dispute. It required any amended complaint to come from California-licensed counsel or Parent.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could describe any child in any district, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could describe any child in any district, and ordered any amended complaint filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a generic template with no facts about Student. Any amended complaint must be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it could apply to any child, and ruled that the New York-licensed attorneys who filed it cannot represent Student in California.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it did not identify the IEP or services in dispute. Any amended complaint must be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as boilerplate that did not identify the IEP or services not implemented, and required any amended complaint to be filed by a California-licensed attorney or by Parent.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the IEP or the unimplemented services, and ruled that New York-licensed attorneys could not file it on Student's behalf.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient as to Issue One and Salinas City Elementary School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint against Salinas City Elementary sufficient on Issues Two, Five, and Six, but limited Issue One to the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years because no earlier facts were pled.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan Area and Denial of Motion to Dismiss Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the El Dorado County Charter SELPA because no facts, claims, or proposed remedies were directed at it, but denied SELPA's dismissal request and allowed Student to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Newhall's challenge to the IEP-goal claims because Student named the specific IEPs, the reading, writing, and math goals at issue, and the missing goal areas.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all six issues because it named the specific IEPs, the challenged placement, services, goals and accommodations, and the autism, toileting and socialization needs left unaddressed.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against iLEAD Hybrid Charter School sufficient because it described alleged failures to assess, identify needs, and develop an appropriate IEP, and proposed specific remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficiently pled against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA because it alleged the SELPA served as the charter school's local educational agency and described Child Find and IEP failures.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 24-page complaint sufficient. Its non-expedited claims about assessment, behavior, placement, goals, services, and parent participation gave Woodland enough information to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Nevada County SELPAOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Nevada County SELPA because it alleged no facts about anything the SELPA did or failed to do; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Issue 3 to Be Insufficient, and Issue 6 to Be SufficientOAH found Issue 3 insufficient because Student pled no facts about a March 22, 2019 IEP, but upheld Issue 6, finding Escondido's claim it did not serve eighth graders a fact question for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Trinity Alps' argument that it lacked a timeframe and supporting facts, because it described the improper-graduation issue well enough for the district to respond.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not allege that Parent lives within Julian Union's boundaries, which is the basis for the district's responsibility, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Finding Student's Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. Although it was sloppy and leaned on 12 pages of quoted assessment text, it still gave Los Angeles adequate notice of the problems, the facts, and the proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named no specific IEP, meeting date, or document and offered vague remedies; Student has 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the time frame starting in 2018-2019, specific IEP meetings, specific deficiencies in Snowline's IEPs, and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it speculated that an acceptable IEP might not be implemented and alleged no facts showing a past settlement's discontinuation denied a FAPE; amendment allowed within 14 days.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficiently Pled as to San Dieguito, and Notice of No Action on San Dieguito's Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to San Dieguito because it alleged no facts about what the district knew or failed to do, and declined to act on a combined motion to dismiss.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Dismissing Issues B(II), B(III), and Issues C Through H as to Victor Valley Union High School District; Dismissing Victor Valley Union High School District From Expedited HearingOAH found Student's Child Find claim against Victor Valley for 2015-2016 sufficient but dismissed all other issues as to Victor Valley, including the expedited claim, because they lacked facts about Victor Valley.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Jose's notice of insufficiency because the complaint stated four issues with sub-issues, about 13 pages of detailed facts, and proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Issue 1 of Student's Due Process Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found Student's failure-to-assess claim sufficient because the complaint named the areas of concern, including cognitive, adaptive, behavior, academic, transition, vocational, and community access, so Southern Kern could respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Los Angeles Unified's complaint sufficient because its single issue, whether it timely offered Student an independent educational evaluation, was stated clearly enough for Student to respond and take part in mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting the charter schools' argument that it lumped two respondents together, because Julian-Manzanita appeared to be a school of Julian and no evidence showed they were separate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Julian Charter School's challenge because the school had already answered the identical claims, attended a resolution session, and proposed specific resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on Parent's claim of being denied meaningful participation at a March 2018 IEP meeting, but insufficient on assessment and eligibility claims for lack of supporting facts.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Parent's complaint sufficient because it gave Elk Grove enough facts about IEP non-implementation to prepare, but dismissed the Section 504 claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named a school instead of a district and did not say whether it challenged eligibility or a specific, dated IEP placement offer.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's challenges to the 2018 and 2019 IEPs sufficient but ruled the 2017 IEP claim insufficient, because Student only said Parents did not know of the facts and gave no facts supporting a statute-of-limitations exception.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found East Side's due process complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Parent enough information to understand that Student's recommended out-of-state residential nonpublic school placement was in dispute.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found two of Student's four issues sufficient but ruled that the issues on changed IEP dates and refused record corrections were insufficient because they did not explain how Student was denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Ivy Academia Charter SchoolsOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Ivy Academia because it blamed an undefined "District" and did not tie facts or proposed resolutions to Ivy Academia; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Natomas's notice of insufficiency was untimely, and added that the complaint would have been sufficient even if the notice had been filed on time.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Sanger's complaint sufficient and the dispute not moot because Parents consented to implementing the IEP but listed detailed disagreements, leaving a live controversy over whether it offered FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its four issues about being kept out of a YMCA after-school program did not explain how Capistrano's conduct related to a denial of FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Partial Insufficiency of Second Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH dismissed Student's failure-to-assess claim after a third insufficient pleading, because Student never said which disability areas Beverly Hills should have assessed, which assessments were needed, or when.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's one-to-one aide and nonpublic school implementation claims sufficient but ruled the claim about a right to an IEP advocate insufficient because it stated no IDEA claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Los Angeles County Charter Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Los Angeles County SELPA because, although listed in the caption, the SELPA was not named as a party and no claims were made against it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Long Beach's due process complaint against Student sufficient because it identified the issue and gave enough facts for Student to respond, rejecting Student's notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its three issues gave Stockton enough information to prepare, and a typo in the year could be clarified at the prehearing conference.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's one-paragraph complaint insufficient because its vague placement and transportation allegations did not give Temecula Valley notice of the basis of the claims, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended assessment claim still insufficient because it did not name the suspected disability areas or the assessments needed, but found the goals, placement, and leaked-report claims sufficient.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Whittier's complaint sufficient because it clearly stated one issue: whether its assessments were appropriate, so that it need not fund the independent educational evaluations Student requested.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because objecting to the school psychologist attending IEP meetings did not describe a FAPE, identification, evaluation, or placement problem; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because objecting to the school psychologist attending IEP meetings did not describe a FAPE, identification, evaluation, or placement problem; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient, holding that it gave Sacramento City enough facts to infer the time period and understand why Student should have been referred for assessment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that missing phrases and typos did not prevent Design Tech High School from understanding Student's FAPE claims about present levels, goals, services, and placement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because both issues clearly alleged that the placements offered in the January 14 and February 25, 2019 IEPs were not appropriate least restrictive environment placements.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it alleged Santa Clara misrepresented its evaluations since 2013, denying parental participation, and supported this with several pages of facts and proposed resolutions.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH refused Rocklin's request to dismiss Student's parent-participation claim. It found the claim sufficiently pleaded under the IDEA's liberal standard and set a two-phase hearing starting with the statute of limitations.
2019
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Novato served its Notice of Insufficiency only by email without Student's consent, so it was not properly or timely served within 15 days.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint only partly sufficient: the goals and placement claims may proceed, but the assessment claim and the claim about the District's alleged placement ruse lacked supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Aveson insufficient because its seven-page narrative mixed facts and arguments without clearly stating any IDEA legal claims, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of First Amended Complaint in PartOAH found Student's first amended complaint insufficient as to issues one and three and part of issue two, because broad year-long FAPE claims buried in confusing narrative failed to give Oakland notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all 11 of Student's claims insufficiently pled because the complaint only listed areas of disagreement, such as "Child Find Law broken," without facts about timing or circumstances.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found three of Student's four issues insufficient because they did not identify which IEP, school years, or teacher misconduct were at issue; only the least restrictive environment claim may proceed.
- Order Denying Student's Request for Legally Sufficient Response from Modesto City SchoolsOAH denied Student's request to order Modesto City Schools to file a more detailed, legally compliant response to her amended complaint, because the IDEA gives no process for challenging a response's sufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Monrovia's complaint defending its psycho-educational assessment sufficient, because it identified one clear issue and described the assessment's instruments, records, observations, and interviews in enough detail for Student to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Dry Creek, ruling that a notice of insufficiency cannot be used to challenge Student's clear jurisdictional allegations naming the district as a party.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the problems with the November 2017 IEP, gave supporting facts, and offered well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and declined Capistrano SELPA's request to be dismissed, ruling that a sufficiency challenge is not the proper way to decide whether the SELPA is a proper party.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the IEPs and dates at issue, alleged missed behavior intervention and speech services, and proposed a detailed formula for compensatory funding.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Despite typos and a formatting error placing 2018-2019 allegations under Issue Three, the complaint gave the County Office of Education enough notice of the issues and facts.
- Order Granting Notice of Insufficiency of Second Amended Complaint and Granting Leave to Amend as to Issues Two, Three and FourOAH found Issues Two, Three and Four of Student's second amended complaint insufficient because Student did not tie the claims to a denial of FAPE, and allowed one more amendment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Aspire Public Schools because it stated no issues or proposed resolutions against the charter, while the case proceeds against Los Angeles.
- Order Determining Student's Issue Two Partially SufficientOAH limited Student's failure-to-assess claim to the two years before filing because the complaint alleged no facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations, and allowed amendment.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It said Upland's argument that it owed no FAPE to a parentally placed private school student is a factual issue for hearing, not a pleading defect.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three claims (aide support, missed physical therapy, and a teacher's treatment) lacked facts about the IEP at issue, the time periods, and how FAPE was denied.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all nine of Student's claims insufficiently pled because they were generic statements with no case-specific facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Gilroy's single-issue complaint sufficient because it identified the January 29, 2019 IEP, Parents' refusal to consent, and the requested remedy, giving Student enough information to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to Sunnyvale only, because every issue, fact, and proposed resolution concerned Discovery Charter and Santa Clara, giving Sunnyvale no notice of any claim against it.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Las Virgenes sufficient because it described eligibility, independent evaluation, implementation, and dyslexia-related service problems with supporting facts and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Amended ComplaintOAH found one issue in Student's amended complaint sufficient but ruled the other two insufficient because they did not explain how they related to the IDEA or a denial of FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly stated four issues about assessment, discipline, bullying, and native-language procedural rights, with enough facts and proposed resolutions for Glendale to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's three-issue complaint sufficient because the complaint and its attachments, read together, gave Kern County enough facts and dates about the assessment claims to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues 1 and 2 of Student's complaint sufficient but Issue 3 insufficient, because Student did not say which of three IEPs Norwalk-La Mirada allegedly failed to implement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It rejected Downey's challenge because the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for Downey to respond, take part in resolution and mediation, and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its two claims, for a one-on-one aide and individual speech therapy, gave no facts, time periods, or IEPs at issue; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. The district's argument that Student is over the age of majority raises a standing question, not a pleading defect, and must be raised in a separate filing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found seven of Student's nine issues sufficient but ruled Issues 5 and 8 insufficient because Student gave no facts on curriculum changes and inconsistent, vague timing on missed speech services.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found San Dieguito's complaint sufficient. The complaint alleged Parents' consolidated case was frivolous and sought attorney's fees, and it named a timeline, a specific IEP, the facts, and a proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because two issues were withdrawn or moot and the other two had no facts. Student may amend within 14 days or face dismissal.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's child find and assessment follow-up claims sufficient. It struck the retaliation, negligent supervision, IEP-signing, expulsion-agreement and Welfare and Institutions Code §625.6 claims because they did not tie to a denial of FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because its thirteen pages of single-spaced narrative and added allegations were too confusing for Los Angeles Unified to understand the issues.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it gave no clear description of the problem, no supporting facts, and no proposed resolution. Student may amend within 14 days or the case will be dismissed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because none of its three issues explained how alleged staff injuries, parent-contact problems, or harassment related to the IDEA or a denial of FAPE. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Clovis's challenge because the complaint identified the disputed assessments and behavior plan with enough facts to put Clovis on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA because no facts tied the SELPA to the alleged violations, and denied the SELPA's motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found four of Student's seven issues sufficient but three insufficient, because they lacked supporting facts or alleged conduct outside the two-year limitations period without grounds for an exception.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Manhattan Beach Unified's complaint sufficient, rejecting Mother's argument that improper service made it insufficient, because the complaint on its face described the problem, facts, and proposed resolution.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described a FAPE denial with five sub-issues about assessment and eligibility, gave supporting facts, and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, denying San Dieguito's insufficiency challenge because all five issues gave the district enough notice to prepare a defense and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its three transition-plan claims gave Newport-Mesa enough facts and proposed solutions to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all three of Student's claims insufficient because they lacked facts showing what was wrong with the assessments, the IEP, or teacher communication; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it proposed no resolutions, only a request to be named prevailing party, while rejecting Ventura's argument that it was not a responsible agency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Vacaville's argument that two issues failed to say when violations occurred, because the complaint gave enough facts to put the district on notice.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against the named Escondido Union High School District. A different, unnamed entity filed the insufficiency notice, and it could not change who the respondent was.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 46-page complaint sufficient, ruling that the district's claim it was served a copy missing four pages is not a basis for an insufficiency challenge when the filed complaint is complete.
- Order Determining the Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's first issue, challenging Conejo Valley's May 2018 IEP, sufficient but ruled Issues Two and Three insufficient because they were proposed remedies, not issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Fontana's Issue Number FourOAH found Fontana's issue four sufficient because it clearly asked whether the district's psychoeducational evaluation was legally compliant, so Student is not entitled to three independent evaluations at public expense, and gave enough facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Placer County SELPA because it alleged no facts showing any IDEA or California special education violation by the SELPA.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issue 3 of Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Rocklin Unified's argument that Student's disenrollment made the claim unclear; whether Rocklin owed Student a FAPE that year is for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Bridges Charter because every issue and remedy targeted only Los Angeles Unified; Student may amend within 14 days or Bridges will be dismissed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Issues One, Two and Three of Student's Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues One through Three of Student's amended complaint sufficiently pled. The complaint gave Conejo Valley enough notice of the assessment claims to respond, prepare for hearing, and participate in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that the records-request and deaf/hard-of-hearing placement claims gave Woodside enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against El Dorado County Charter SELPA because it described no violation by the SELPA, and denied the SELPA's motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH found three of Student's four claims insufficiently pled but kept a parent-participation claim about a November 2018 IEP meeting, denying Newport-Mesa Unified's motion to dismiss because that claim is within OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to River Springs Charter School because every issue and remedy targeted a "District" the complaint defined as Temecula Valley Unified, with no allegations against River Springs.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Tehachapi filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, missing the legal deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting William S. Hart Union's vagueness challenge because the complaint, read liberally, described the alleged IEP failures well enough for respondents to prepare a defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Garvey's challenge to the communication and academics allegation because the facts gave Garvey enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its four issues and supporting facts gave Charter Oak Unified enough notice to respond, and any statute-of-limitations dispute is a factual question for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Placer County SELPA because none of its 15 claims described any violation by the SELPA, and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found issues two through five of Student's second amended complaint sufficient but issue one still insufficient, because it gave no facts on why the offered placement could not meet Student's needs.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Monrovia's challenge, because it described an inappropriate placement and Monrovia's failure to implement IEP services for an FM system and captioning, with adequate facts and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Caliber Beta Charter School; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Caliber Beta because Student left the charter school in 2015 and the complaint alleged no facts supporting a statute-of-limitations exception or violations in the two-year window.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient and Dismissing Individual PartiesOAH found Student's brief complaint about teacher communication and lack of math progress sufficient under minimal pleading standards, but dismissed two individual district employees because they are not public agencies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found three of Student's six issues sufficient. The issues challenging the placement offer, a transition plan, and procedural violations were insufficient because they gave San Dieguito no supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all three issues in Student's complaint insufficient because none identified an IEP, school year, time period, or other facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it named the school, teacher, school years, and challenged actions, and dismissed Simi Valley's combined motion to dismiss and strike because OAH won't accept multiple motions in one filing.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the school, teacher, school years, and challenged actions, and dismissed Simi Valley's motions to dismiss and strike because they were improperly combined in one filing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's complaint sufficiently pled because it identified the school, teacher, school years, and alleged denials of FAPE. It dismissed Simi Valley's combined motions to dismiss and strike without prejudice.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it named the school, the special day class teacher, the school years, and the alleged FAPE denials. It dismissed Simi Valley's bundled motions to dismiss and strike without prejudice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's third amended complaint sufficient, ruling it adequately described River Springs' alleged failure to provide promised compensatory education and the facts behind Parents' late discovery of the denial.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Antelope Valley Union High School District as a PartyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss Antelope Valley Union as a party, because the complaint gave enough facts on the assessment and IEP claims to let the district prepare.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's third amended complaint sufficient. It adequately alleged that River Springs failed to provide promised compensatory education and that Parents learned of this only after Student left in June 2017.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that Parent's attached one-page narrative and teacher weekly reports gave Burton enough notice of the issues to prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all four of Student's claims against Stockton insufficiently pled because they lacked dates, descriptions of incidents and behaviors, and explanations of how the IDEA was violated; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to San Diego Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against San Diego Unified because Student attended a charter school that is its own local educational agency, and San Diego Unified provided no services during the period at issue.
- Order Determining Complaint Sufficient as to Hemet Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Hemet, ruling that despite typos and track changes, all three FAPE claims alleged enough facts for Hemet to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Alum Rock's argument that Student had to identify specific time frames and IEP dates for her claim about goals, services, and programs.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified two challenged IEPs, listed seventeen specific problems, and proposed seven resolutions, giving Redlands Unified enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency in Part and Insufficiency in Part of Due Process ComplaintOAH found only one of Student's eight claims sufficient, the claim about two October 2018 IEPs, because the other seven gave no time periods, IEP meetings, or supporting details.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Fillmore's notice of insufficiency, because its four issues, supporting facts, and proposed remedies gave Fillmore enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described a school incident involving a knife or paper cutter and discipline but did not connect it to special education or a denial of FAPE.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named Springs Charter Schools only in the caption and made all claims against an undefined "District," leaving unclear what Springs Charter Schools did wrong.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named only Springs Charter Schools but never mentioned it in the facts or claims, and directed relief against an undefined "District."
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found most of Student's challenged issues insufficient because they named no IEP dates, used vague terms like "services," or lacked supporting facts; two issues were sufficient and Student may amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Antioch's notice of insufficiency, because it described Student falling behind, Parent's unanswered requests for assessments and an IEP meeting, removed interventions, and proposed resolutions.
- Dismissal of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH dismissed the Contra Costa SELPA's sufficiency challenge as moot because the SELPA had already been dismissed as a party to Student's complaint the same day.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that its child find claims covering 2012 to 2018, its statute of limitations exception theory, and its nine proposed remedies gave Washington enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it gave no proposed resolutions, even though its four issues and supporting facts were adequately pled; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, including a challenged proposed resolution, because it gave Garvey notice of the five claims and the remedy relied on an expert's recommendations pleaded as facts.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Nevada County Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Nevada County SELPA because it alleged no claims against the SELPA and no facts showing it was responsible for or served Student.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite poor organization, and held that the expedited manifestation-determination claim cannot be challenged through a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 49-page complaint sufficient. Its 32 pages of facts gave Garvey enough notice of the readiness skills, psychoeducational evaluation, and functional behavior assessment claims to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Cambrian's claim that the time period was ambiguous, because Student expressly limited the claims to the two-year statutory period.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its two issues were specific about Inglewood's failure to convene an IEP meeting and have an IEP in place at the start of the 2018-2019 school year.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's non-expedited Issue Two on denial of parental rights insufficient because it was vague and had no facts. The expedited manifestation determination issues are exempt from the sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 20 of Student's 21 issues sufficiently pled under liberal pleading standards, but found Issue 5 insufficient because it mixed placement-continuum and goals claims without explaining what was missing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's assessment claim insufficient because it did not identify which areas or assessments were inadequate or which independent evaluations were sought. Issues two through five were found sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found issues two and three of Student's second amended complaint sufficient, because they gave Burbank enough facts to understand the claims, respond, and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Denying Request to Determine Sufficiency of Expedited ComplaintOAH denied Student's sufficiency challenge to Eureka's expedited complaint because federal law has no sufficiency process for expedited hearings and there is not enough time for one.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint against Riverside sufficient because its 14 issues and supporting facts gave the district enough notice to respond, and its nine proposed resolutions were adequately pled.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Hearing RequestOAH found Student's complaint sufficient for claims after May 1, 2018, but insufficient for earlier claims because Student gave facts only about the May 1, 2018 IEP meeting.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because the functional behavior assessment and special day class placement claims gave Elk Grove enough notice to prepare, even without explaining why an assessment was legally required.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Citrus Springs' complaint sufficient because it clearly stated two issues, independent assessments at public expense and assessing Student without parental consent, with enough facts for Student to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all three of Student's claims against Orcutt insufficiently pled because they were vague, confusing, and lacked facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Alum Rock's challenge because the complaint gave specific 2018 incident dates, related facts about behavior interventions and placement, and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged Capistrano should have assessed Student before proposing a more restrictive placement and removing his one-to-one aide, and it proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues A through E of Student's complaint insufficient because alleging the districts 'failed to offer, implement and provide' FAPE left unclear whether Student claimed an IEP implementation failure; Issue F was sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Victor Valley's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the issues and enough related facts for the district to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its only issue, the IEP team's refusal to retain Student in 5th grade, lacked facts, a clear FAPE claim, and a proposed resolution; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Denying Request to Determine Sufficiency of Expedited Issues and Granting Determination of Insufficiency of Remaining ClaimsOAH refused to test the sufficiency of Student's expedited discipline claim, since federal law provides no sufficiency process for expedited hearings, but found any other claims insufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's placement claim against Corona-Norco insufficient for the period before her October 2018 re-enrollment, because the complaint did not say how far back Student wanted the two-year limit extended.
- Order Denying Request to Determine Sufficiency of Student's ComplaintOAH denied the District's sufficiency challenge because Student's only claim, a challenge to expulsion for conduct alleged to be a manifestation of disability, is expedited, and expedited complaints cannot be tested for sufficiency.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially SufficiencyOAH found only two of 13 claims in Student's amended complaint sufficient: the bullying/safe-environment claim and the IEP-implementation claim. The other 11 lacked basic facts such as dates and how FAPE was denied.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged Placentia denied a FAPE by failing to offer an appropriate nonpublic school placement and services, and proposed a resolution.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint's SufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. A lack of OAH jurisdiction over ADA and Section 504 retaliation claims is not a reason to call a complaint insufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency in Part of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find, assessment plan, and eligibility claims sufficient, but ruled the ADA and Section 504 discrimination claims insufficient because they did not describe a problem within OAH's jurisdiction or supporting facts.
- Order Determining Issue One Sufficient, Issues Two and Three Insufficient, With Leave to Amend Unexpedited Issues OnlyOAH found Student's manifestation determination claim sufficient because expedited discipline claims cannot be tested for sufficiency, but found two non-expedited claims about placement and therapy insufficient, with leave to amend.
- Order Determining Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. It identified nine issues with related facts and time frames, enough for Panama-Buena Vista to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its two problems, needing an aide and receiving group speech therapy once a week, gave no facts, time frame, or explanation of how Konocti failed Student.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on most issues against Sky Mountain but insufficient on most issues against its management company, because few facts were alleged against the company. Student may amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found five of Student's six issues sufficient but ruled the Section 504 and civil rights claim insufficient because it gave no facts or link to a denial of FAPE.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all eleven issues in Student's complaint insufficient because they did not say which time periods each claim covered, and a catch-all for later-discovered issues was improper.
2018
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against both districts. Whether the statute of limitations can be extended needs evidence, and missing exact dates or a disputed school enrollment do not make a complaint insufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that Student did not have to say whether Yosemite or the Local Plan was responsible, because both share responsibility for FAPE when Student attends a Local Plan program.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 23-page complaint insufficient because none of its 10 issues gave dates or tied specific facts to each issue, leaving Panama-Buena Vista without adequate notice to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Solano County Office of Education insufficient. It pled no facts showing the county office was responsible for Student's education, or linking the progress, mistreatment, and discrimination claims to a denial of FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Garvey's due process complaint sufficient because its single issue on the legal compliance of its 2018 psychoeducational and speech and language assessments gave Student enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child-find complaint sufficient, rejecting Capistrano's statute-of-limitations challenge because whether older claims fall outside the two-year limit is a fact question for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient and Granting Leave to AmendOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its bullying and IEP-implementation claims gave no supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Granting Leave to AmendOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because all three claims (child find, response to an assessment request, and eligibility/IEP offer) listed problems without any supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its claims of discrimination, collusion, and poor communication were conclusory and did not explain how they denied Student a FAPE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Confirming Placement as an Issue at HearingOAH kept Student's placement claim in the hearing because the amended complaint, though not artfully worded, gave San Marcos notice that Parents disputed its moderate to severe placement offer.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Granting Leave to AmendOAH found only Issue One (missed speech and occupational therapy sessions) sufficient and Issues Two through Seven insufficient because they made bare assertions without supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its single FAPE issue, nine specific sub-issues, several pages of facts, and proposed resolutions gave Orinda enough notice to prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to claims against the Elementary District older than two years and all claims against the High School District, but sufficient for remaining Elementary District claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified District assessments, the specific services Student needed, the services District offered at the September 2017 IEP meeting, and the remedies sought.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Alpine Union filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after it received or should have received the complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it raised only Section 504 accommodation requests, with no facts showing IDEA eligibility or an assessment dispute. Student may amend within 21 days, and Coastal's dismissal motion was denied as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that allegations about transportation for a wheelchair user, lack of a placement offer, and missing behavior supports gave Long Beach enough notice to prepare.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Jacoby Creek's argument that Student had to detail withheld information or allege intentional withholding to plead an exception to the statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Garvey's claim that references to "the IEP meeting" were unclear, because the complaint gave enough facts and proposed resolutions to put Garvey on notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because the 19-page complaint described, with dates, documents, and IEP quotes, how Visalia allegedly failed to offer an appropriate IEP, and it listed proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Tehachapi's demand for an explicit list of issues because the complaint gave the district enough notice of Student's claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Kern County's argument that two duplicative issues made one insufficient, because duplication is not a basis for a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining Request for Due Process SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused to make Student restate the issues, because the complaint gave the charter school enough notice of the claims to respond and prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all six of Student's claims insufficiently pled because they lacked clear descriptions and facts. OAH also found the proposed resolutions unclear and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient: although the issue statement was vague, the facts made clear Student claimed a denial of FAPE because Long Beach refused a one-to-one aide.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Hemet's claim that a broad FAPE issue gave no notice, because the facts identified a specific assessment and two IEPs Student challenged.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claim about a denied 1:1 academic aide sufficient. It found four other claims insufficient because they lacked facts, dates, an identified IEP, or a link to FAPE.
- Amended Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was an unnumbered timeline of school incidents that never stated issues, tied facts to an IEP, or identified what San Diego did to deny a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a timeline of school and outside incidents with no stated issues, no IEP references, and no link to a denial of FAPE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Berkeley enough notice of the manifestation, placement, transfer, and records issues; Berkeley's residency challenge must be decided at hearing, not through a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining First Amended Complaint Sufficient as to ILEADOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient as to ILEAD Charter School because its new facts about an unstructured program, failed classes, and lack of support gave ILEAD fair notice of the claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found six of Student's seven issues insufficient for lacking dates, IEP references, and supporting facts, but held the claim about no twelfth-grade annual IEP and an unearned diploma sufficient.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 61-page complaint sufficient because its issues, facts, and proposed resolutions were grouped under school-year headings, which gave Southern Kern enough notice of when the alleged violations occurred.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient: even without naming the specific IEP at issue, it described failure to implement and develop an appropriate IEP, plus supporting facts, enough to put Antelope Valley on notice.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH denied Los Angeles's motion to dismiss, treated as an untimely sufficiency challenge, because the district raised it after the 15-day deadline, so Student's complaint was deemed sufficient as a matter of law.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found four of Student's nine claims sufficient, including IEP participation, therapy services, and compliance with a prior OAH decision. It found five claims too unclear or confusing to proceed and allowed amendment.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH denied Los Angeles's motion to dismiss, treated it as a late sufficiency challenge, and deemed Student's complaint sufficient because the district did not object within 15 days.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It treated Los Angeles's motion to dismiss as an untimely sufficiency challenge and held that a request for unavailable damages does not defeat IDEA claims about eligibility, services, and placement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Tehachapi filed and served its notice of insufficiency 16 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to iLEAD Charter School because it alleged no acts or omissions by iLEAD, and gave Student 14 days to amend or iLEAD will be dismissed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient, rejecting all nine of Salinas's insufficiency arguments because the complaint gave enough notice of the issues and the details Salinas wanted were not required.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its brief facts gave Santa Clarita notice of the aide, allergy, and speech-language claims, along with proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient because it described two years of failing grades, low test scores, and discipline that put Victor Valley on notice it should have assessed Student.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's stay put claim sufficiently pleaded and refused to treat it as a stay put motion, because a complaint need not offer evidence to support its allegations.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's child find claim against Columbia Union sufficiently pled because it identified the issue, related facts, a possible statute of limitations exception, and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain how the 2018-2019 IEP was deficient or how the district's handling of ant bites, self-biting, and eating concerns denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to ILEAD Charter School because it only said Student attended ILEAD and made no claims about its IEPs, implementation, or procedural violations.
- Order Determining Issue Two of District's Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Issue Two of Rialto's complaint insufficient because it did not say which assessments were part of the triennial review or which ones Rialto claimed were legally sufficient.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because San Jose filed its notice of insufficiency on September 10, 2018, after the 15-day deadline that ended September 6, 2018.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Continuance of Due Process HearingOAH denied Student's oral motion to find Tehachapi's complaint response insufficient. The motion was untimely and deliberately held until the prehearing conference, and no authority lets OAH judge a district's response.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it recited facts and law but never identified which IEPs were challenged, when violations occurred, or how Simi Valley violated the law; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's eight-claim complaint sufficient, rejecting Anaheim Union's notice of insufficiency because each claim gave enough facts and a proposed resolution to put the district on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Maricopa Unified School District and El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado and Maricopa because it named them as respondents but alleged no facts about anything they did or failed to do.
- Order Determining Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because its five issues, including lack of a behavior assessment, inappropriate placement, and FERPA noncompliance, had no supporting facts and no proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partly sufficient. Assessment and IEP claims before July 31, 2016 were insufficient because Student pleaded no facts to get around the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against Los Angeles County Office of Education, even though the issues were not specifically directed at it, because the complaint gave enough notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that the District's argument that IEP meetings never occurred is a factual dispute for hearing, not a pleading defect.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Corona-Norco's challenge because the complaint identified specific IEP dates, assessment requests, and areas of need, and gave notice of a statute-of-limitations exception claim.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Moraga filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after the complaint was served by fax on July 10, 2018.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Orinda Union's challenge because the 45-page complaint laid out 12 concise issues with enough facts for the District to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. The issue statement's reference to the "statutory period" was not confusing because the complaint clearly alleged violations, and an exception, reaching beyond the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite few facts because its three suspension-related issues are expedited, and expedited issues are not subject to the notice of insufficiency process; hearing stays set for August 2, 2018.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's complaint partially sufficient, allowing claims that Corona-Norco denied a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate extended school year programs in summers 2017 and 2018 to proceed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint Re Long Beach; Order Denying Long Beach's Motion to Dismiss in Part as MootOAH found Student's child find claim against Long Beach Unified insufficient because it alleged no facts within the two-year limitations period or supporting an exception, and denied Long Beach's motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's resource-room access claim sufficient but ruled the claims about withheld graduation awards and the superintendent's meetings with Mother insufficient because they did not allege a denial of FAPE.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of the claim that District failed to provide appropriate assessments and an IEP meeting Student's unique needs, plus proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining First Amended Complaint to Be Sufficiently PleadedOAH found Student's first amended complaint sufficient because its seventeen claims about three IEPs gave District enough facts to prepare for hearing, resolution, and mediation.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on all seven issues because its facts about placement, services, parent participation, assessments, and behavior gave the District enough notice to prepare and respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against the El Dorado County Office of Education and SELPA, ruling that their claim of no involvement in Student's program is a factual issue for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claim about being denied the chance to walk at graduation insufficiently pled because it gave no details on eligibility, who denied it, when, which school, or how it denied FAPE.
- Order Determining Student's First Amended Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found Student's first amended complaint sufficient on all 21 issues, because the details of services and goals are matters for proof at hearing and need not be pled in minute detail.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its four FAPE issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions gave District enough notice to respond, participate in resolution and mediation, and prepare for hearing.
- Order Determining Complaint Partially SufficientOAH found Student's claim of an overly restrictive placement sufficient but his home-school placement claim insufficient, because Student gave no facts on how placement away from his home school denied FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient: although the problem statement was general, the specific facts and legal authorities pled put Tustin on notice of child find, assessment, goals, and services claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Partially InsufficientOAH found five of Student's nine issues sufficiently pled but rejected a vague parent-participation claim and three Section 504 claims, which OAH lacks jurisdiction to hear.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It clearly alleged that Santa Cruz denied Student a FAPE, including by limiting Parent's classroom access, aide consistency, timely IEP meetings, and mental health services, and it gave supporting facts and proposed resolutions.
- Order Deeming Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency 19 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be Insufficient as PledOAH found Student's entire 16-issue complaint against Long Beach Unified insufficient because it gave no supporting facts and no facts justifying claims reaching back past the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its six claims about bullying, retaliation, prior lawsuits and harm never tied any specific act, IEP, service, or date to a denial of FAPE.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient As PledOAH found Student's entire 16-issue complaint against Long Beach Unified insufficient because every issue stated bare conclusions with no supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency because all of Student's claims required an expedited hearing, and federal law provides no sufficiency challenge for expedited discipline-related claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found four of Student's 13 issues sufficient and nine insufficient, mostly because they did not identify the IEP, school year, services, or time frame being challenged.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge, because it identified the 2017-2018 school year, alleged facts showing the reading program and FAPE offer were inappropriate, and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its claims, including failure to assess and failure to implement, lacked dates, specifics, and clear facts, and its proposed remedies were undefined; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find claims since May 7, 2016, plus the records, retaliation, and discrimination claims sufficient. It found most other issues too vague or time-barred, and held expedited expulsion issues cannot be challenged for sufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that fifteen sparsely worded problems with four IEPs still gave Norwalk-La Mirada enough notice to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Dublin's second amended complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Student enough notice that the residential placement claim concerned the period after Student's April 2018 expulsion from a nonpublic school.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its two issues challenging Julian Union's assessments and its denial of a FAPE over two school years gave the district enough notice to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's occupational therapy assessment claim insufficiently pled because the complaint gave no supporting facts, while Issues 1 through 3 were sufficient; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's Issue Seven sufficient, holding that allegations District failed to hold an IEP meeting or offer placement and services for 2018-2019 gave District enough notice to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Southern Kern Unified School DistrictOAH found 12 of Student's 18 issues insufficiently pled because the 56-page complaint gave no dates, timeframes, or specific IEPs and did not tie 12 years of facts to the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint of Hanford Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Hanford because none of the six claims mentioned Hanford, identified dates or school years, or sought specific relief from it; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint for Lemoore Union Elementary School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Lemoore because none of its six claims mentioned Lemoore, gave dates or school years, or stated specific facts or relief against it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the Kern County Consortium SELPA because the SELPA appeared only in the caption, with no facts, claims, or requested relief directed at it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its ten issues about placement, services, ABA, IEP meetings, transportation, and supports gave San Francisco enough notice to respond.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found a self-represented Parent's complaint sufficient. It alleged District failed to identify a student with brain injuries and depression for special education, and District's jurisdiction arguments belonged in a motion to dismiss.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Insufficient as Against Regional Center and Granting Leave to AmendOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Far Northern Regional Center because it did not allege facts showing the Regional Center, a non-educational agency, owed Student a FAPE under the IDEA.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found a self-represented family's complaint sufficient, ruling that its brief problem-and-remedy statements on speech, oral motor, occupational therapy, and AAC needs gave District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's IEP offers, the alleged FAPE denials, and a missed auditory processing assessment request, along with well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave enough facts and proposed resolutions for District to respond, take part in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough facts about the re-enrollment, assessment, and IEP dispute, and a clear reimbursement request, to prepare a defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Empire Springs Charter SchoolOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Empire Springs because it clearly stated proposed remedies against each charter; whether facts support a residential placement is not a sufficiency question.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Yucaipa-Calimesa because it alleged the district where Student lives failed to offer a FAPE after another district disenrolled Student for non-attendance.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Community Collaborative Charter SchoolOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to the Charter School because it described the home program, IEP meetings, private placement, and disenrollment well enough for the Charter School to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all three issues in Student's complaint insufficient because they were unclear or incomprehensible, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order Finding Complaint Issues 1, 2 and 3 Sufficient and Issue 4 InsufficientOAH found three of Student's four issues sufficiently pled, but Issue 4 insufficient because it did not identify which services, IEP changes, or eligibility errors were at issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient despite typos, a wrong pronoun, and a stray reference to another district, because the facts still gave District fair notice of the claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its two-sentence claim, that a recent independent evaluation showed an intellectual disability the district mislabeled as emotional disability, gave no supporting facts, dates, or IEPs at issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's parent-participation claim sufficiently pled because the complaint's factual history showed High Tech High allegedly ignored Parent's communications, even though facts were not summarized under the issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it lumped the charter school and county office together as "District" without saying which agency did what or which should provide each remedy.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint against River Springs sufficient because its more than 20 pages of facts gave the charter school enough notice of the assessment and FAPE issues to respond and participate in resolution.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint partly insufficient: assessment, needs, present-levels, and accommodations claims lacked supporting facts, while goals, placement, services, and procedural claims were adequately pled.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's refusal to reimburse costs under a prior settlement agreement, gave supporting facts, and proposed resolutions, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it alleged enough facts about signs of emotional disturbance, District's failure to assess, and disciplinary protections to put District on notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding Issue 1 adequately pled within the two-year limitations period and rejecting District's attempt to dismiss Issue 3 through a factual determination akin to summary judgment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its three claims (child find, IEP offer, and eligibility) and supporting facts gave the District enough notice to respond and prepare for resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's issues one and two and part of issue three insufficient for lacking supporting facts and tolling grounds, but let behavior-related claims from the last two years proceed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found a self-represented Parent's complaint sufficient because it gave Etiwanda clear notice that ending Student's EASE online program without prior written notice was the dispute, along with a time frame and proposed resolutions.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's motion to make District file an amended response to her complaint. The motion was untimely, and no law authorizes OAH to judge the sufficiency of a district's response.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified one failure-to-implement issue, listed the 16 IEP accommodations allegedly not provided, and proposed compensatory education as a remedy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH declined to test the sufficiency of Student's wrongful-expulsion complaint because expedited disciplinary claims are not subject to the notice-of-insufficiency process, so the March 6, 2018 hearing stays on calendar.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because both issues incorporated dozens of earlier paragraphs and mixed in facts from outside the stated time periods, leaving the respondents unable to understand the claims.
- Order Denying Los Angeles County Office of Education's Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against LACOE, rejecting its argument that the complaint lacked facts showing LACOE had any responsibility for Student, because the complaint gave adequate notice of the issues.
- Order Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 15-page complaint sufficient, rejecting District's argument that it lacked detail, because it gave District an awareness and understanding of the issues and proposed specific resolutions.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficient and Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's 36-page complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss claims reaching back to 2012-2013, because whether the statute of limitations bars them requires factual findings at hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint against Rialto sufficient on all three issues, because the detail Rialto demanded was either excessive or already in the complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient even though it attached a state Uniform Complaint Procedure filing, and rejected Palm Springs' argument that the California Department of Education's prior compliance finding barred the case.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 13-issue complaint sufficient, reading the child find claim together with the rest of the complaint to supply the March 2016 to January 2018 time frame.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Tracy Unified's due process complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that Student's request for independent evaluations was premature and that District's own assessments were appropriate.
- Order Finding Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint against Rialto Unified insufficient because its records, assessment, and IEP claims lacked specific facts about who, when, which IEPs, and which areas of need; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 53-page complaint sufficient despite heavy redundancy because it clearly numbered its claims with supporting facts and proposed resolutions, giving District adequate notice of the issues.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient as PledOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because it did not explain why District's academic and speech services were inadequate, what other services were needed, or the details of alleged classroom injuries.
- Order Determining of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough facts about the alleged failure to provide an individual aide and a safety accommodation to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because El Dorado County Office of Education filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Los Angeles County Office of EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to LACOE because it praised LACOE's juvenile hall supports and identified no specific educational supports LACOE failed to provide; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all seven of Student's claims insufficiently pled because they lacked time periods, specific facts, and identification of which respondent was responsible, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient and Denying Requests to Dismiss Complaint and to Vacate Expedited Hearing DatesOAH found Brentwood's complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss it or vacate expedited dates, because a district may seek an interim placement for dangerousness without any disciplinary or manifestation process.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claims about an inappropriate program and too many pull-outs from core classes sufficient, but ruled claims about compliance complaints and staff mocking Student at an IEP meeting lacked supporting facts.
2017
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency as MootOAH denied Los Angeles Unified's notice of insufficiency as moot because it had already granted Los Angeles' motion to dismiss and removed it as a party the same day.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against a district and two charter schools sufficient because it described the problems, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions for each school year at issue.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because its safety concerns about violent classmates and vague regression claims did not describe problems with Student's own special education or include supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's four-issue complaint sufficient because it gave both districts enough facts about the assessment and IEP claims to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described Solano County's alleged failure to provide a sign language interpreter or captioning, exclusion from field trips, and limits on Parent participation, with proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against the El Dorado charter SELPA because it clearly challenged whether three IEP meetings lacked a qualified SELPA member, giving El Dorado enough notice to respond.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its five issues, supporting facts about assessments, goals, and services, and proposed remedies gave District enough notice to respond and prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Alisal filed its Notice of Insufficiency after business hours on November 28, making it deemed filed November 29, more than 15 days after service.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it only said Parent disagreed with Student's placement, giving no facts, dates, or reason for naming the county office; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's failure-to-assess claim insufficient because it did not say when the duty to assess arose, but found the IEP goals, FAPE offer, and procedural claims sufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's first issue insufficiently pled because it could mean either that Kern County's residential stipend was too small or that it wasn't paid, which duplicated the second issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the El Dorado County Charter SELPA because it alleged no facts showing the SELPA was responsible for Student's placement, goals, services, or FAPE decisions.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Strike as MootOAH denied Student's motion to strike District's notice of insufficiency as moot because OAH had already found Student's complaint sufficient in its entirety.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient except one subissue alleging Parents were not timely given the IEP, which had no supporting facts, and rejected Elk Grove's challenges to the proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its three FAPE claims about placement and supports, goals, and reading, writing, and math interventions gave District enough notice, and its private school remedy was well-defined.
- Order Determining Complaint, and Each Claim, SufficientOAH found Student's complaint and every claim sufficient, rejecting District's demands for residence and conservatorship details and its statute-of-limitations argument as defense matters outside a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it challenged two specific IEPs and listed the goal and service areas Student says were missing, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the charter school because every claim and proposed remedy was aimed only at District, leaving Charter without notice of what it must defend.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. It also declined to rule on District's combined motion to dismiss and said Student's claimed statute-of-limitations exception for withheld records requires an evidentiary hearing.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 28-issue complaint sufficient because it gave IEP dates, disabilities, disputed services, placement, and proposed resolutions, enough for District to prepare for hearing.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency, because the FAPE issue and six sub-issues for 2015-2017 gave District enough facts to prepare for hearing and resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Antioch and Spectrum sufficient, ruling that Antioch's objections were defenses to the claims rather than a failure to give notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found four of five issues in Student's amended complaint insufficient for lacking dates, people, and IEP details, but held the class-transfer parental participation claim sufficient.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that expedited discipline claims cannot be challenged for sufficiency and that the remaining claims gave District enough facts to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's residency complaint sufficient because it gave Student enough notice that District disputes Student's residency during the period covered by Student's claims, even without specifying exact dates.
- Order Denying Oakland Unified School District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Oakland District because it described procedural, assessment, records, and placement claims dating to 2010 with enough facts and proposed resolutions to give notice.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it named the special education director instead of the District and did not identify a legal issue, supporting facts, or time frame.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues 3 and 4 insufficiently pled against Glendale because the complaint did not identify which assessments or IEP were at issue or give facts about Glendale's alleged failures.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient for claims before September 28, 2015, because it repeated the same facts and alleged nothing supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against County, ruling that allegations that Student's records should have prompted an assessment when he entered Juvenile Court School gave County enough notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Third Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found three of Student's 14 claims sufficient: records access, failure to assess, and an IEP meeting held without notice to Parent. The other 11 failed to explain how the events denied a FAPE or Parent participation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient for claims before September 28, 2015. It did not allege facts showing either exception to the two-year statute of limitations, so Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its two issues, on assessment and IEP design, gave District enough facts to respond, take part in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge, because it described assessment, IEP, placement, implementation, and predetermination claims with enough facts for District to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's expedited discipline complaint sufficient because the IDEA does not allow a notice of insufficiency against an expedited hearing request under 20 U.S.C. section 1415(k)(3).
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Setting Mediation, Prehearing Conference, and Due Process Hearing Dates for Expedited ClaimOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of five FAPE claims about the September 2017 IEP. OAH also read in an expedited expulsion claim and set expedited hearing dates.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It gave enough facts about late IEP meetings, incomplete assessments, and lack of progress, and its loosely defined proposed remedies still met the legal standard.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Grossmont because it adequately described the refusal to admit, assess, and offer an IEP. Any residency dispute belongs in a motion to dismiss, not an insufficiency notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its forms and handwritten pages did not clearly describe the problems or supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District denied a FAPE by failing to produce education records requested by Student's attorney, leaving Parent unprepared for the IEP meeting.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District denied a FAPE by failing to produce education records requested by Student's attorney, and proposed a resolution.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Garvey's claim that it could not understand Student's requested functional behavior assessment, because proposed resolutions are only proposals that can be discussed at resolution or mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Colton's notice of insufficiency because the complaint's five claims and related facts gave Colton enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it challenged Irvine's May and June 2017 IEP offers of services and goals by referencing an independent evaluator's recommendations and critique.
- Order Determining Natomas's Notice of Insufficiency MootOAH found Natomas's notice of insufficiency moot because Student had already filed an amended complaint against both districts after OAH found the original complaint insufficient as to Twin Rivers.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint insufficient because it did not clearly state each problem, when it occurred, or a real proposed resolution, and allowed 21 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's bullying-related complaint sufficient because it gave Morgan Hill notice of a child find claim: the district knew of the bullying and its effects but failed to timely offer an assessment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's five-issue complaint sufficient and kept all dates, rejecting Monrovia's bid to dismiss because how far back Student can seek remedies is a factual question for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Student's First Amended Due Process Complaint as to Hope Elementary School DistrictOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to Hope Elementary because it never said which district committed each violation, when it happened, or which IEPs or assessments were involved.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It clearly described District's failure to hold an IEP meeting, implement a transfer IEP, and resume home hospital services, even though one claim left out the year.
- Order Granting District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not say whether Student was already in special education or whether the District failed to assess or identify her, giving 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado SELPA because it never alleged how El Dorado took part in identifying, evaluating, placing, or offering FAPE to Student, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency with OAH more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, missing the statutory deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to El Dorado SELPA because it never explained how the SELPA was responsible for, or took part in, any of the alleged violations.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintComplaint found insufficient against Twin Rivers because Student's first three issues lumped both districts together as "District" without saying which district acted or when; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Determining Sufficiency of Complaint; Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continue Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH found District's complaint sufficient and consolidated it with Student's case because both involve the same IEP offer and assessments. It moved the hearing to District's October 17, 2017 date.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's issue three sufficient even though it did not list specific IEP dates, because it gave District enough notice about its 2016-2017 offer to respond and participate in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 16-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting District's argument that including a Section 504 claim made it insufficient; jurisdiction challenges belong in a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's IEP and assessment claims sufficient but found her challenge to February 2015 assessments insufficient, because she gave no facts on when she knew or should have known they were inappropriate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because Student lives outside Arcadia, Arcadia no longer serves him, and OAH has no authority to decide whether a district must grant an inter-district transfer.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never explained what was inadequate about Monrovia's current offer of counseling and support services, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that District's statute-of-limitations and ripeness arguments fall outside an insufficiency challenge and that the complaint gave District fair notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its three issues, each tied to a specific IEP, gave Huntington enough facts to respond and stated proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's challenges to three IEPs sufficiently pled because the complaint described the specific needs each IEP allegedly failed to address, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency as to Sonoma County Office of EducationOAH found Issue 3 of Student's amended complaint sufficient against Sonoma County Office of Education because it gave enough facts and proposed remedies to put Sonoma County on notice.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency as to Elk Grove Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's Issue 4 against Elk Grove sufficient because the sub-issues, read with the supporting factual paragraphs, gave Elk Grove enough notice to respond, attend a resolution session, and mediate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it only said District denied a FAPE without any facts explaining how, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient because it clearly identified the IEP and assessment plan at issue, gave related facts, and stated well-defined proposed resolutions; all hearing dates were confirmed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 15-page complaint insufficient because it mixed background with claims, left the time frame unclear, and never said how District's May 2017 IEP offer was deficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after Parent personally served the complaint, and District did not rebut the signed proof of service.
- Order Determining Issue 1 of Student's Complaint to Be Insufficient as to Placer County Office of EducationOAH found Issue 1 of Student's complaint insufficient as to Placer County because the complaint stated no facts about the county office's role in Student's 2015-2016 placement. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint to Be Partially Sufficient and Partially Insufficient as PledOAH found most of Student's complaint against Elk Grove sufficient, but held the 2017-2018 FAPE claim and some assessment-plan and predetermination claims insufficient because they lacked supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Lincoln Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Lincoln on the 2017-2018 placement claims. It ruled that the discipline-related claims are expedited issues that cannot be challenged for sufficiency and must go to hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's third amended complaint sufficient against Antelope Valley because it identified the issues, gave enough supporting facts, and proposed detailed resolutions, including McKinney-Vento homeless claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Second Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient, ruling that Issue 1's ambiguous safety and behavior allegations were clarified by facts elsewhere in the complaint about toileting, infections, and inattention.
- Order Denying Vallejo City Unified School District's Notice of Insufficiency as to Vallejo CityOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Vallejo City, holding that a statute of limitations defense is not grounds for insufficiency and must be raised in a motion to dismiss instead.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It gave District enough facts on three IDEA issues: failure to assess, failure to give prior written notice, and failure to offer an IEP.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's Issue One sufficient, rejecting Pittsburg's claim that it lacked details about disciplinary removals, because the complaint gave enough notice of the manifestation determination and behavior plan claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly described three years of alleged assessment, IEP, aide, and independent evaluation failures and gave defined proposed remedies, rejecting District's vagueness and time-frame objections.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be Insufficient as PledOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it gave no dates or specific facts about when special education ended, which two subjects were not taught, or how a failed settlement denied her an education.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Issues 2, 3 and 4OAH found Issues 2–4 of Student's complaint insufficient because they lacked IDEA-related facts, sought remedies outside OAH's jurisdiction, or gave too few facts; the expedited manifestation issue proceeds to hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It described assessment findings and recommendations in enough detail to show Alameda's alleged failures to identify Student's needs and provide appropriate services, and it included well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient, rejecting Orange's challenge because the complaint gave enough facts to respond and well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite Brentwood's challenge that two issues lacked time frames, holding that time frames and overlapping sub-issues can be clarified at the prehearing conference.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient in Its EntiretyOAH found all five issues in Student's complaint insufficient because none said when events occurred or how District's alleged conduct denied Student a FAPE. Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Student's Second Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's hostile-environment parent-participation claim (Issue Nine) insufficient because it alleged conflicts with staff without facts showing who, when, where, or how Student was denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the time period, the IEP at issue, or which services and accommodations were inadequate and how; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all five claims in Parent's complaint insufficient because they lacked time frames, specific facts, and an explanation of how Student's education was affected, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found five of Student's issues against The New School of San Francisco sufficiently pled, but found the remaining allegations too vague because they did not explain how the facts denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge to seven issues and the proposed resolutions because Student pled specific facts, dates, and IEPs, and stated resolutions to the extent known.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's transition-planning claim sufficient, rejecting District's overbreadth challenge, because the complaint was time-specific and identified specific IEP discussions and District policies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge to Issues Nine and Ten because they alleged a denial of FAPE through withholding of elective classes, with supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency after the 15-day deadline, which ran from Student's personal service on May 26, 2017, not from OAH's filing date.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issue E and parts of Issue A sufficient but Issues B, C, and D insufficient because Student did not tie them to specific facts, and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claims that District failed to identify Student and provide services sufficient, but found the Section 504 accommodations claim insufficient because it gave no facts about which accommodations were missing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's failure-to-implement-IEP claim sufficient but ruled three claims about District staff behavior insufficient because they did not allege a denial of FAPE or other IDEA violation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's issue three, claiming she was improperly graduated, sufficiently pled, ruling that the agencies' jurisdiction objection belongs in a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Hemet Unified sufficient because it identified all three issues and enough related facts for the District to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's IEE issue and found District's complaint sufficient, because Student's argument went to the merits and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Rialto's complaint insufficient. Its request to place Student at a nonpublic school was unclear about Student's special education status, and it gave no reason for asking that its mental health assessment be found legally compliant.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issue 7 of Student's amended complaint sufficient but Issue 8 still insufficient because Student again failed to identify which IEPs lacked needed technology or what equipment was required.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because the Schools' notice of insufficiency was faxed after 5:00 p.m. on day 15, so it counted as filed on day 16, past the deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's assessment claims sufficient but her parental-participation and supports-and-services claims insufficient, because the complaint gave no specific facts about how participation was blocked or which services were inappropriate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint about an unsent daily log and an unscheduled IEP meeting sufficient, because Oak Grove already knew the facts and dates from Parents' direct complaints to the school.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Student's Due Process Complaint as to Issue AOAH found Student's Issue A insufficient because it alleged violations "for each school year permitted by statute" without a timeframe or supporting facts; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found only Issue Two sufficient against Antelope Valley. Student's other claims lumped three districts together as "Respondents" without saying which district did what, so they were insufficient as to Antelope Valley.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH found Student's third due process complaint insufficient and refused to consolidate it, because it repeated a transition-assessment claim already pending and its statute-of-limitations claim depended on the earlier cases.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Murrieta Valley's challenge to an issue about unadopted independent evaluator recommendations, because the Statement of Facts described each evaluator's recommendations.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all eight issues in Student's complaint sufficiently pled, rejecting Torrance's challenge to four issues because the complaint gave enough notice of the claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Student's Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Tracy's challenge to the records issue because the complaint expressly alleged that Tracy's failure to provide records within five days denied Student a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Corona-Norco's due process complaint sufficient and denied Student's motion to dismiss, because Student's challenges went to the truth of the district's facts and its ability to prove them, which a sufficiency motion cannot decide.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint against two districts insufficient on all four issues because it never said which district was responsible for which alleged violation; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's due process complaint sufficient, rejecting Rowland's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the issues and enough facts for the District to respond and prepare.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint Insufficient as to Contra Costa County Office of EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Contra Costa County Office of Education because it never mentioned the County Office or tied it to Student's education, assessments, or requested remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found six of Student's nine issues insufficient because they gave no time frames or specifics, which mattered because the complaint's facts reached back to 2009, beyond the two-year limitations period.
- Order Finding Issue 2 of Student's Complaint Sufficient, and Finding Issues 1 and 3 InsufficientOAH found Student's challenge to the December 2016 IEP sufficient but struck the vague "Spring 2014-2016 semester" FAPE claim and a remedies-only compensatory education claim, allowing amendment within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient because it identified a single issue, whether its December 2015 social-emotional assessment was appropriate so as to defeat an independent evaluation request, plus supporting facts and a proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 21 of Student's 25 claims insufficient because they relied on the legal conclusion "appropriate" without facts, but upheld four claims that Torrance failed to implement IEP behavioral services.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Although it could have been better organized, it described the problems, the supporting facts, and proposed resolutions well enough for both districts to respond.
- Amended Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's claims that it lacked a specific time period and Father's address, because it tied the claims to the June 2015 assessment and IEP meeting.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's arguments that two issues lacked a specific time period and that the complaint omitted Father's address.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Insufficiently PledOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it mixed up references to Redlands and East Valley SELPA, leaving it unclear which agency was responsible, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint seeking approval of its nonpublic school placement offer sufficient, because Student's objections raised factual disputes for hearing, not pleading defects.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's general claim and assessment sub-issue insufficient because "including but not limited to" language was too vague for District to respond. The "including" wording in sub-issue three was sufficient.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Insufficiently Pled as to LACOEOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to LACOE because it alleged no facts showing LACOE's role in Student's education or any LACOE action that denied him a FAPE.
- Order Granting Notice of Insufficiency and Denying Motion to Dismiss ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it lumped San Diego Unified and Old Town Academy together as "District" without saying which acts or failures belonged to which agency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child-find complaint sufficient, ruling that the facts about Parent's assessment requests, a 504 plan, and Student's mental health needs gave Arcadia enough notice to prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient, rejecting Student's challenge because disagreement with the facts or claims of mootness must be decided at hearing, not on a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite a generalized FAPE claim, because the complaint read as a whole gave District enough notice of the issues and well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Denying Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found District's complaint sufficient despite Student's claim that only one page was served, because its assessment issues gave Student adequate notice; improper service belongs in a motion to reset timelines.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH rejected Torrance's insufficiency challenge, finding Student's five-issue complaint gave enough facts and well-defined proposed resolutions. A missing time period for the assessment claim could be reasonably inferred from the complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because the copy served on District left out the attachment page describing the placement problem and supporting facts, so District lacked notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find claim sufficient against the SELPA, but Issues Two and Three insufficient as to the SELPA because Student alleged no facts showing SELPA's role in providing FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its Notice of Insufficiency 29 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge to the ADA and Section 504 issues and the proposed resolutions because the complaint gave District enough notice to prepare.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It gave District enough notice of the claims: failure to assess, discounting Student's mental health issues, and denial of meaningful parent participation at the IEP meeting.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint Partially Sufficient and Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's claim about inadequate speech, occupational, and physical therapy insufficient because it was unclear whether it challenged implementation or the IEP offer, but found the participation and placement claims sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave District enough notice of claims about missed areas of need, missing goals, and inadequate services, even though it included five pages of legal discussion.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its child find, interim placement, and FAPE claims gave Culver City enough notice to respond, even though the reference to Student's "last District placement" was somewhat confusing.
- Order Finding Student's Amended Complaint Sufficient and Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient because each challenged allegation gave District notice of the claims. It denied District's motion to dismiss because District combined it with an insufficiency notice despite two prior warnings.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient a second time because it still did not identify which IEPs, time periods, or program features allegedly denied Student a FAPE.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that District's concerns about the time frame, statute of limitations, and prior settlements require fact-finding at hearing, not a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District's notice of insufficiency, faxed after 5:00 p.m. on the 15th day, counted as filed the next day and was untimely.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its single claim that District failed to meet Student's unique needs did not identify which needs went unaddressed; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Torrance Unified enough facts about its behavior-intervention, goals, and FAPE claims to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint to Be Sufficient in Part and Insufficient in PartOAH found most of Student's 19 issues sufficient. Claims on fine motor needs, home and parent services, bus safety, long-term outcomes, social work, and some procedural claims lacked supporting facts.
2016
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency because the detailed allegations about assessment, services, placement, and discrimination gave District fair notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found five of Student's issues sufficiently pled but ruled the rest of the narrative complaint too vague, because it did not explain how the alleged facts amounted to a denial of FAPE.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the specific present levels and goals in the May 11, 2016 IEP that were at issue and explained why they were deficient.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to Lassen County Office of Education because the complaint named it in the caption but alleged no facts about it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its two-year denial-of-FAPE claim failed to identify the specific IEPs, assessments, meetings, missing team members, and dates at issue. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its claims about the District's delay in scheduling an IEP meeting and holding it without Parent gave the District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge to Issues 3 and 4 because the complaint clearly alleged a time period of November 2014 through filing for all claims.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it set out three year-by-year FAPE claims with details on missing assessments, defective IEPs, and needed placement and services, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave District enough notice of claims that District failed to address Student's autism- and ADHD-related behavior needs, including a BCBA-supervised one-to-one aide.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's insufficiency challenge because the complaint gave enough facts and proposed resolutions to put District on notice of the three claims.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Service of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as filed but ordered re-service by December 2, 2016, because Fresno never received the first page with Student's identifying and contact information.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Respondent California School for the Deaf RiversideOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to California School for the Deaf Riverside because it described incidents there but alleged no claims or proposed resolutions for which CSDR would be responsible.
- Order Determining Student's Amended Due Process Complaint to Be Sufficiently Pleaded Against Hemet Unified School District and Riverside County Office of EducationOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against newly named Hemet and RCOE. It gave them notice of the issues even though it did not say which agency caused which violation.
- Order Denying Saugus Union's Motion to Dismiss and Finding Student's Complaint Sufficient as to Saugus UnionOAH denied Saugus Union's motion to dismiss and found Student's complaint sufficient. The district's argument that a charter school alone was responsible for Student was a merits question, not a facial jurisdiction issue.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Problem 1 of Student's complaint insufficient because it only asked for an IEP meeting without alleging a violation, but read Problems 2 through 4 together as sufficient procedural claims about the September 2016 IEP.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its detailed facts on all three issues and sub-issues put District on notice, and its proposed resolutions were well-defined.
- Order Denying Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found District's complaint seeking to assess Student without parental consent sufficient, rejecting Student's notice of insufficiency because it argued the merits rather than pleading defects.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claim of improper exit from special education and claims of withheld IEP services and records sufficient, but found other claims too vague and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Delano adequate notice of eight sub-issues and that Student did not have to plead prior notice to seek private placement reimbursement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claim of improper exit from special education and part of her claim of missed IEP services and records sufficient, but held other claims too vague to give Torrance Unified notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint Filed by Goethe International Charter SchoolOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to Goethe International Charter School because it alleged no facts and proposed no resolutions concerning Goethe, only Los Angeles Unified.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it gave no general time period for the alleged FAPE denial or for the IEP team meeting at issue, and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Amended Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all five issues in Student's complaint sufficient. It rejected District's claims that the complaint lacked dates and specificity because the issues gave District enough information to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the Los Angeles County Charter SELPA because it alleged no facts tying the SELPA to Student's education or to the requested relief.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all issues. It rejected District's arguments that the complaint lacked specific dates and specificity, because the complaint described the problems and facts well enough for District to prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Woodland enough notice of alleged failures to address apraxia, consider general education placement, and provide a 1:1 aide and speech services from 2014 to 2016.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Issue Three of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's third claim, that Grossmont denied a FAPE by denying more vocational opportunities, insufficiently pled because it lacked facts about needed services, why they were needed, and when they should have been offered.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found three of Student's claims against Byron insufficiently pled, ruling they lacked dates, a causal link to a denial of FAPE, or which district was responsible, but upheld Student's testing-validity claim.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's auditory processing assessment claim and proposed resolutions sufficient, but found Issue 12 insufficient because its prior written notice facts concerned only Palos Verdes, not Torrance.
- Order Denying District's Notice of Insufficiency of Student's ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's claimed confusion about which school year was at issue, because the complaint described repeated assessment requests, related facts, and specific remedies.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to LACOE because it alleged only that LAUSD and the charter operate under LACOE's authority, without describing any problem or facts involving LACOE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that District's argument that a stay put order fixed Student's program is an affirmative defense for the hearing, not a pleading defect.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because San Francisco Unified filed its notice of insufficiency 16 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day deadline, and gave no reasons the complaint was insufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that allegations about an untranslated IEP and a placement change made without Parent's consent adequately stated a parental-participation claim against MCOE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Greater Anaheim SELPA because it alleged no facts showing how the SELPA was involved in decisions about Student, beyond general child find duties.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Respondent Mesa Union Elementary School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Mesa Union because it only listed issues and remedies against "district(s)" with no factual allegations, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the services allegedly missing from the 2016-2017 IEP and the relief sought, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Respondent Pleasant Valley School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Pleasant Valley because it listed only issues against "district(s)" and remedies, with no factual allegations, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that its restraint, IEP implementation, goal progress, grade reporting, and IEP team attendance claims gave Saugus enough notice to respond.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Victor's complaint defending its 2016 psycho-educational and behavioral assessments sufficient, even though it did not say which of two 2016 behavior assessments it meant, because Student had enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its three claims, covering child find, assessment in all areas of suspected disability, and program design since June 2014, gave Torrance enough notice to respond and prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused Torrance's request to limit each issue to its specific factual allegations, calling that request beyond the scope of a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found all four issues in Student's complaint insufficient because they lacked basic facts such as IEP meeting dates, what testing was done, and why the special day class placement denied a FAPE.
- Order Denying Antelope Valley Union High School District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Antelope Valley because it alleged the high school district took part in the transition IEP; ripeness and validity of the claims need findings at hearing.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency, because it detailed the alleged failures on goals and services in reading, writing, and math with specific facts and requested relief.
- Order Determining Student's Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient because its eleven issues, with dates, names, documents, and proposed resolutions, gave Solano County Office of Education fair notice of the claims.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Partially InsufficientOAH found three of Student's four issues sufficient but ruled the independent educational evaluation claim insufficient because it did not identify the disputed evaluation or the type of evaluation requested.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Insufficient; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it gave no facts showing how denying a transfer to a higher-performing middle school denied a free appropriate public education. District's motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues One, Two, and Five of Student's amended complaint sufficient but Issues Three and Four insufficient because they were vague and lacked facts tied to specific assessments, dates, and events.
- Order Determining Amended Complaint to Be Partially SufficientOAH found Student's amended complaint partly sufficient: placement and re-enrollment claims may proceed, but the compensatory services and transgender animus claims lacked enough facts to give District notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Torrance's claims of uncertainty. Read as a whole, the complaint clearly challenged the 2015-2016 transition placement, the program's failure to meet Student's transition needs, and missed counseling.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency 17 days after being served, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Lawndale filed its notice of insufficiency 17 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that District was exiting Student with a high school diploma he had not truly earned, ending his IEP and special education services.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its single emotional-distress claim gave no time period, no statement of special education eligibility, and no explanation of how District denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not give the dates of the IEPs at issue, when Student asked for an IEP meeting, or which two-year period the placement claims covered.
- Order Finding Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged Duarte mishandled an assessment request without stating when, to whom, in what form, or for which assessments the request was made.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Garvey filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the complaint was filed and served on May 20, 2016.
- Order Granting Notice of Insufficiency; Granting Leave to Amend Due Process Complaint Within Fourteen Days; and Continuing All DatesOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it gave no facts about the alleged harassment, bullying, and discrimination and no proposed resolution, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient; Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Reset Timelines and Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its seven issues gave no facts, dates, or people involved, and never explained how the events related to special education or denied Student a free appropriate public education.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find claim sufficient but ruled that three claims alleging a math teacher's emotional and verbal abuse lacked enough facts, such as dates and specific conduct, to proceed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Antelope Valley served its notice of insufficiency by fax on May 24, 2016, more than 15 days after receiving the complaint.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. It denied District's second notice of insufficiency because the amendment fixed the problems identified in the earlier order and gave District enough notice of five issues and proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Torrance's challenge because the complaint gave enough facts about placement and services for 2013-2014 and 2015-2016, and statute-of-limitations arguments do not belong in a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's two-page complaint sufficient because it clearly identified eight ongoing issues and gave District enough facts to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Napa filed its notice of insufficiency on May 13, 2016, one day after the 15-day deadline ran.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its claim that the placement was "unsafe" did not connect to special education issues under the IDEA, and its proposed resolution was vague.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that it gave San Francisco clear notice of the noisy-classroom placement claim and that a remedy OAH may not order does not make a complaint insufficient.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency as untimely and deemed Student's complaint sufficient, because District filed it about 22 days after receiving the complaint, past the 15-day deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all five of Student's claims insufficient because none gave the time periods, specific IEPs, or facts District needed to prepare, and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its two issues and about six pages of detailed facts gave Kern enough notice to respond and to take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Whisman, ruling that statute of limitations and short-attendance arguments are defenses for a motion to dismiss, not grounds for an insufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Torrance's argument that the complaint had to spell out assessment inconsistencies and could not allege alternative dates for when a residential placement became appropriate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District denied Parent meaningful participation by failing to provide Student's educational records despite two written requests.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient on all three issues (bus transportation with an aide, a full-time one-to-one aide, and occupational therapy) because it lacked facts showing why Student needed them.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Torrance enough facts about the district's alleged failure to continue Student's home and hospital instruction and to hold a requested IEP meeting.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Capistrano's amended complaint sufficient because Student's notice of insufficiency reached OAH four days after the 15-day deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Moraga and OrindaOAH found all six of Student's claims insufficiently pled against Moraga and Orinda. The complaint did not explain each district's responsibility, the relevant time periods, or how the services fell short.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Problems 1 and 3 of Student's complaint sufficient but Problem 2 insufficient, because Problem 2 offered only argument supporting the other claims and no facts for a separate claim.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its child find claim made no sense for an already-eligible Student, it lacked supporting facts, and it had no proposed resolution; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Request for Official Notice of Administrative Record Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's claims about missed mainstreaming sufficient, but found the parent-participation claims insufficient because they listed no supporting facts, such as which professionals were excluded or which concerns were ignored.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because all five issues about District's eligibility, assessment, and IEP decisions gave District enough facts to prepare, and the proposed resolutions were well-defined.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Morgan Hill's claim that it was too confusing, because it adequately described breach of a settlement agreement, IEP defects, and assessment and service failures with supporting facts.
- Order Denying Notice of SufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Culver City's claim that it lacked dates and details, because the allegations about delayed assessment and an inappropriate deaf-education offer gave adequate notice.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH denied Wheatland's insufficiency challenge, holding NOIs do not apply to expedited discipline claims and that Student's non-expedited child find, assessment, and FAPE claims were pled with enough facts.
- Order Determining Issues Three and Six of Student's Amended Due Process Complaint to Be SufficientOAH found issues three and six of Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that Oakland's statute-of-limitations, evidentiary, and legal-entitlement arguments belong in a motion to dismiss or at hearing, not a notice of insufficiency.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's one-issue complaint about extracurricular access insufficient because it gave no facts about Student's disability, IEP, the activities sought, or how and when access was denied.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's twelve-issue complaint sufficient and held that Washington's jurisdictional challenge to the Section 504 claim cannot be raised through a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's failure-to-assess claim sufficient because the complaint gave enough detail about when assessment requests were made, but found the records-request claim insufficient for lacking dates and recipients.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient on all six issues because Student fixed the gaps identified in an earlier order and stated well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Riverside's challenge because the bullying and Spanish-translation claims alleged enough facts to put the district on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's child find complaint sufficient because it identified the eligibility categories at issue, Student's unmet needs, and the reimbursement sought, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claims about aide services and the change in placement to a nonpublic school sufficient, but found the claims about reports to Child Protective Services and toy-holding insufficient because they were not tied to FAPE.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency and Finding Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and denied District's notice of insufficiency, ruling that the claims about delayed assessment, home hospital instruction, and a missing behavior support plan gave District enough notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found all four of Student's claims against Valley View Charter Prep insufficient because none gave enough facts to tell the charter school what the claims were based on, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Due Process Hearing Request to Be InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because all five issues alleged only Section 504 and ADA violations, which OAH cannot hear, and none identified any IDEA violation.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that the facts and proposed resolutions clarified a single behavior-related FAPE issue and adequately supported the request for a non-public school placement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintStudent's complaint was deemed sufficient because Long Beach's notice of insufficiency reached OAH after business hours on the 15th day, making it untimely.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's 29-page complaint sufficient, rejecting Monrovia's challenge because the complaint tied enough facts to specific issues to put the District on notice, and the proposed resolutions were adequate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling it gave Borrego Springs enough facts about assessment, IEP, and placement claims, and that Student need not specify the amount or type of compensatory education sought.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Partially InsufficientOAH found issues 1 and 4 of Student's amended complaint sufficient but issues 2, 3, 5, and 6 insufficient because they gave no dates or facts showing when the alleged violations occurred.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient as to Orange County Department of EducationOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient for a second time as to the Orange County Department of Education because it alleged no facts tying Orange County to Student's IEPs or services.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to StrikeOAH deemed Student's amended complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the amendment was deemed filed, and denied Student's motion to strike as moot.
2015
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's six-claim complaint sufficient because it gave enough facts about eliminated feeding therapy, reduced occupational therapy, and missing evaluations for respondents to prepare and participate in resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Orange County Department of EducationOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Orange County Department of Education because all five issues alleged violations only by Brea-Olinda and gave OCDE no notice of claims against it.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its three issues on child find, specific learning disability eligibility, and parent participation gave District enough facts to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint, Northeast Orange County Special Education Local Planning AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the Northeast Orange County SELPA because none of its five issues made any allegations about SELPA, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Complaint Is SufficientOAH found Student's issues two, three, and six sufficient, ruling the complaint's facts gave Monterey enough notice of the assessment, placement, and records-request claims to respond and take part in mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. Its claim that Merced City failed to produce requested educational records within five days gave enough detail about the missing records and the resulting harm.
- Order Determining District's Amended Complaint SufficientOAH found District's amended complaint sufficient because it identified the challenged 2015 assessments and IEPs with enough facts for Student to respond, mediate, and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Imperial County on the claim that it failed to implement a settlement agreement, noting that whether the county is a responsible agency belongs in a motion to dismiss.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denial of District's Motion to DismissOAH found Issue Two insufficient because Student pled no facts supporting an exception to the two-year limitations period. Issues One and Three may proceed, and District's motion to dismiss on Section 504 grounds was denied.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Second Amended ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint insufficient because it failed to state distinct issues, dates, and facts answering who, what, how, and when, and allowed 14 days to file a third amended complaint.
- Order Determining Insufficiency of Amended ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because its single claim did not explain who, what, how, and when, and gave Student 14 days to file a second amended complaint.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of ComplaintOAH found Student's one-issue complaint sufficient because it identified a dispute over grade-level retention and named the specific IEP meeting where Coronado denied Parent's retention request.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described Student's placement, behavior, and speech-language problems with enough facts, and offered proposed resolutions, to let District prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's due process complaint sufficient because it identified its single FAPE claim, Student's educational history, the offered program, and a proposed resolution, giving Student enough notice to respond.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 32-page complaint sufficient against Hemet because it described specific IEP meetings, assessments, and problems tied to Hemet, giving the district enough notice to prepare and take part in resolution.
- Order of Determination of Partial Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found two of Student's procedural claims insufficient because they gave no facts about when Parent requested an IEP meeting or an IEE, but held the challenged placement, assessment, and accommodations claims sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient in its entirety, rejecting Monrovia's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the issues, related facts, and proposed resolutions well enough for Monrovia to respond.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process First Amended ComplaintOAH found Student's First Amended Complaint sufficient against Los Angeles County Office of Education, ruling that IDEA's minimal notice rules do not require issues to be broken out by school year or agency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the time period, which IEPs were challenged, or whether the claim concerned implementation or IEP development of behavior supports.
- Order Granting Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's five-issue complaint insufficient because no issue identified specific District conduct, when it occurred, or how it denied a FAPE, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It gave District notice of the claims about reduced behavior services, inadequate goals, and an unanswered auditory processing assessment request, along with well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Granting Notice of Insufficiency With Fourteen Days Leave to AmendOAH found Student's whole complaint insufficient: two issues lacked supporting facts, and asking only for a meeting did not count as a proposed resolution. Student has 14 days to amend.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 23-page complaint sufficient because it described one math-related denial of FAPE claim in detail, with dates, people, IEPs, an independent evaluation, and proposed remedies.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of ComplaintOAH found Student's 27-page complaint sufficient, rejecting Monrovia's challenge because the complaint gave enough facts to put the District on notice of the issues and allow it to prepare and participate in resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of First Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's first amended complaint sufficient because it now ties each of nine alleged incidents to Student's IEP and a denial of FAPE, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because an IEP amendment attached to it showed District dropped Student off at the wrong location, leaving him unsupervised near a gas station on August 6, 2015.
- Order: (1) Finding Complaint Insufficiently Pled, (2) Denying Previous Requests for Leave to Amend, and (3) Denying District's Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the disputed IEPs, how District failed to implement them, or the timing of disenrollment. OAH also denied leave to amend because confusing duplicate filings could not be tracked.
- Amendment to Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Scheduling Order as to Expedited Hearing, Prehearing and MediationOAH rescinded its earlier insufficiency finding as to Student's expedited discipline claims, because no law allows a sufficiency challenge to expedited issues, and reinstated the expedited mediation, prehearing, and hearing dates.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all fifteen of Student's claims against Ukiah Unified insufficiently pled because none gave facts about when events happened, what occurred, or how Student was denied a FAPE.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied CAVA's insufficiency challenge, finding Student's complaint about Home Hospital services, the June 2015 IEP offer, and the refused reenrollment gave enough facts and remedies to proceed to hearing.
- Order (1) Determining Due Process Complaint Claim 1 to Be Sufficient and (2) Granting Motion to Dismiss Claims 2, 3, 4 and 5OAH found Student's IDEA claim sufficient but dismissed four other claims based only on the ADA, Section 504, Section 1983, and state tort law, because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be Partially InsufficientOAH found Student's records-maintenance issue insufficient because it did not explain how missing records denied a FAPE or blocked parent participation. Student's proposed resolutions were sufficient despite District's resolution-session complaints.
- Order Granting Delta Charter High School's Notice of Insufficiency of the Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its roughly ten pages of facts never clearly stated specific claims against Delta, though the proposed resolutions were adequate; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's 23-page complaint sufficient because its four detailed issues, supporting facts, dates, and 17 proposed resolutions gave District enough notice to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its allegations of injuries, mistreatment, and poor supervision were never tied to Student's assessments, IEP, placement, services, or a free appropriate public education.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found all seven issues in Student's complaint insufficient because none stated what happened, when, which district was responsible, or how Student was denied a FAPE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because, read fairly, it gave the District notice of claims about a vision therapy assessment, the denial of vision therapy services, and parental participation, plus a proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found five of Student's issues insufficient and limited a goals claim to vocabulary because Student did not allege facts showing the IEPs involved or why the requested services were needed.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all 15 issues in Student's complaint against Winters and Davis insufficient because Student did not say which district held each IEP meeting, what was offered, or why it was inappropriate.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency, finding Student's complaint gave enough facts about IEP offers from November 2014 through June 2015 even though issues were not numbered.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's demand for more specificity because the complaint gave enough facts and remedies to meet the IDEA's minimal notice requirements.
- Order Denying Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Student's notice of insufficiency against Glendale's expedited complaint because sufficiency challenges are not allowed for expedited hearing requests.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH declined to decide West Orange County Consortium's sufficiency challenge as moot because the consortium had already been dismissed as a party the day before and no longer had standing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because District's notice of insufficiency was filed more than 15 days after it received the complaint, and the four placement and services claims were adequately pled anyway.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found eight of Student's ten issues insufficiently pled because the long fact section addressed only missing progress reports. Issues Two and Six were sufficient, and Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on all four issues, holding that District's objection really disputed the adequacy of its assessments, a factual matter that cannot be raised in a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's Issue One insufficient because it claimed District failed to provide offered 2014-2015 services without identifying any services or facts; Issues Two and Three proceed.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Cupertino enough facts on assessment, IEP implementation, provider credentials, goals, and offer of services to respond and prepare for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found six of Student's 25 issues sufficient and the rest insufficient, because most claims did not tie facts to specific IEPs, time periods, or ESY sessions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency, because it identified the issues and gave enough facts and proposed resolutions for District to prepare and respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that her three FAPE issues and supporting facts gave District enough notice to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's bullying-related complaint sufficient. Missing dates did not defeat it, because the claims are presumed to fall within the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Determining Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's statute-of-limitations challenge because a notice of insufficiency cannot be used as a motion to dismiss or to decide factual issues on the pleadings.
- Order Finding Complaint Sufficient in Part and Insufficient in Part, and Granting Leave to AmendOAH found four of Student's five claims sufficient. It found Problem 1, about Parent's attempt to rescind a mediation agreement, too vague to understand without guesswork, and allowed Student to amend.
- Order Finding Student's Due Process Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly described claims about a hostile bus environment that effectively ended Student's transportation and an inappropriate extended school year placement, along with proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's behavior-strategies claim sufficient but ruled the broad placement, program, and services claim insufficient because it gave no facts describing the problem; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its six issues, about IEP meeting procedures and home and hospital services, gave District enough facts and proposed resolutions to respond.
- Order Granting Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient for a second time because it repeated already-rejected issues and did not say what District did, when, or how it denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found two of Student's claims insufficient. Student attended private school, and the complaint did not explain why Alum Rock was responsible before the January 2015 IEP or what was wrong with that IEP.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without PrejudiceOAH found 10 of Student's 17 sub-issues sufficient and 7 insufficient for missing key facts, and denied Oceanside Unified's motion to dismiss because a notice of insufficiency cannot serve as one.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of the claims about placement, goals, services, parent input, and a failure to assess on parental request.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It held that the behavior assessment and behavior plan claims gave Torrance enough notice, even without specific details about how the plan was not implemented.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as Kern High School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Kern High School District because it did not explain how Kern's assessment, IEP, and transition plan were deficient or what information was withheld from Parent.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's six-issue complaint insufficient because it gave no dates or facts, such as which IEE or which IEP parts were at issue, and did not say which agency each claim targeted.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described facts but never listed the specific issues, leaving Fullerton unable to tell what Student was claiming; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged Rincon Valley denied a FAPE by refusing Parents' request to place Student in a general education class as her least restrictive environment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that a statute-of-limitations argument cannot be raised in a notice of insufficiency and that alleging a total absence of a transition plan gives District enough notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because SDCOE filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after service and offered no authenticated evidence that it received the complaint late.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge to Issues Three and Eight, because the complaint described Student's needs, the missing supports, and proposed resolutions in enough detail to give notice.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's argument that an earlier OAH decision about Student resolved the issues, because that goes to the merits, not pleading sufficiency.
- Order Granting Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it challenged a discipline incident without facts showing special education eligibility, unique needs, or a denial of FAPE within the two-year period. Student may amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's argument that Student had to specify the behaviors requiring a 1:1 aide; the alleged social, communication, and attention needs gave adequate notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's vagueness challenge, because summary issue statements built on detailed parent-written critiques of the IEP gave District adequate notice of the claims.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its claim that a teacher failed to send home or post homework did not show a dispute under the IDEA, and gave 14 days to amend.
- Order (1) Determining Complaint to Be Sufficient and (2) Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and denied District's motion to dismiss. The complaint gave fair notice of the assessment-consent claims, and District's motion improperly sought a ruling on the merits.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency after 5:00 p.m. on the deadline day, so it counted as filed the next day, outside the 15-day limit.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge over the missing IEP date because District admitted it had made only one FAPE offer to the preschooler.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's IEE and progress-report claims sufficient but ruled the placement claim insufficient because it did not say whether the problem was a District IEP offer or the educational rights holder's representation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's letter-form complaint sufficient because it gave San Diego enough facts about the alleged termination of licensed vocational nurse services to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's Issue 2 sufficiently pled against South Bay because it identified the allegedly deficient 2013 psychoeducational assessment, gave supporting facts, and requested an independent assessment.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied the District's notice of insufficiency because Student filed a mediation-only request, and the law gives no way to challenge the sufficiency of a request that does not seek a due process hearing.
- Order Regarding Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's mental health issue sufficient but ruled two issues about tardiness, leaving class, and staff calls to Parent insufficient because they did not tie the behavior to FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's six-issue complaint insufficient because the issues were disjointed and vague, failing to identify specific District actions, when they occurred, or how they denied a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that new allegations about a February 2015 IEP meeting gave District enough notice of the issues and facts to respond and prepare.
- Order Regarding Due Process Complaint's SufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite San Francisco's objection that it omitted specific IEP meeting dates, because the issues and proposed resolutions made clear Student was challenging the current IEP offer.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its four claims and supporting facts gave District enough notice to respond, and held that District's residency challenge is a factual question for hearing.
- Order Denying Notice of SufficiencyOAH denied San Francisco Unified's notice of insufficiency, ruling that the District's argument that it was not the proper respondent for an independent charter school cannot be decided through a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process Complaint and Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Hemet Unified's motion to dismiss and found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that a broad settlement release did not bar unresolved claims because it was rescinded within three days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint Regarding West San Gabriel Valley Special Education Local Planning AreaOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the West San Gabriel Valley SELPA because it alleged no facts about the SELPA, which was only listed as a party, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave detailed facts about Student's behavior challenges, named the IEP dates from the past two years, and explained why her program and behavior supports were inappropriate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly challenged the District's November 20, 2014 IEP offer of placement at Soquel High School and listed specific proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its allegations about June 2014 assessments, IEP goals, services, placement, and parent participation gave District enough notice to respond and prepare.
- Order Denying Sacramento City School District's Notice of Insufficiency as UntimelyOAH denied Sacramento City School District's notice of insufficiency as untimely because it was filed more than 15 days after the complaint was personally served, so Student's complaint is deemed sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not identify the time period, the IEP at issue, whether the claims concerned assistive technology or the IEP process, or any proposed resolution.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint SufficientOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough notice of the records-access, bullying, and IEP-implementation claims and proposed remedies to respond and prepare for resolution and mediation.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be Insufficient in PartOAH found Student's three goal and tutoring claims insufficient because they did not identify the IEP, the goals at issue, or the remedy sought, but found the IEP meeting scheduling claim sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its claim that District refused to negotiate bus pick-up and drop-off times gave District enough notice, even though the requested remedy was loosely worded.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting ABC's argument that it had no legal duty to fund a residential placement because district responsibility is a legal question for hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all seven issues, rejecting Tamalpais's standing, statute-of-limitations, and jurisdiction objections as improper or premature in a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the mailed complaint was served, and the complaint adequately alleged a failure to offer occupational therapy.
- Order: (1) Finding Due Process Complaint Sufficient, and (2) Limiting Issues at Hearing to Two Years Prior to the Filing of the ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because ongoing failures to assess and support behavior were adequately alleged, but limited hearing issues to events on or after December 17, 2012 under the two-year limitations period.
2014
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described alleged FAPE denials at the December 2012 and December 2013 IEP meetings, the related facts, and proposed remedies clearly enough for District to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its claims about an unimplemented IEP and missed annual IEP reviews after private placement gave District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its behavior-related issues, stay put claim, proposed resolutions, address, and school of attendance gave District enough notice, despite District's challenge to issues two and three.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Escondido's argument that a parent must first object to a district assessment before asking for an independent educational evaluation as a due process remedy.
- Order Granting Amendment of Complaint and Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH granted Student's unopposed amendment and found the amended complaint sufficient, ruling that District's statute-of-limitations argument cannot be raised in a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's amended complaint sufficient because Fairfield filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the amended complaint, missing the statutory deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's extended school year implementation claims and part of the AAC staff-training claim sufficient, but found the transportation, speech, physical therapy, and modified curriculum claims too vague, and allowed an amended complaint.
- Order Determining Student's Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because none of its six problems said what happened, when it happened, or how it denied Student a FAPE. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's Spanish-language letter complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District cut behavior services from five hours weekly to one hour monthly and asked for them to be restored.
- Order Granting District's Notice of Insufficiency With Leave to Amend, and Vacating DatesOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never explained why District owed a FAPE after Parents revoked consent and District properly exited Student, or what services were missing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Father's complaint sufficient, ruling that the District wrongly treated his procedural claim of being shut out of the IEP process as a substantive claim.
- Order Granting Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint in Part, With Leave to AmendOAH found three of Student's four claims sufficient but found the claim seeking copies of an investigation insufficient, because it gave no facts about the investigation or its link to Student's education.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that the facts about a life-threatening peanut allergy gave Clovis enough notice of a child find and Other Health Impaired eligibility claim.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Richland filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after being served with the complaint, missing the statutory deadline.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Hemet's notice of insufficiency, finding Student's disorganized 41-page, 11-issue complaint still gave District enough notice of the claims and proposed resolutions under liberal pleading rules.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Student's Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, adding seizure and bullying claims as hearing issues, because it described the problems, time period, and specific facts well enough to put Santa Rosa on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Torrance's argument that Student gave no facts supporting an assistive technology assessment, because the complaint gave adequate notice of the issue and explained the requested remedy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found most of Student's complaint insufficient for missing dates, facts, and how District denied a FAPE, but let one claim proceed: District's failure to provide an FM hearing system in 2013-2014.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claim that Lancaster ignored Parent's concerns and predetermined the IEP sufficient, but found four other claims too vague or not IDEA-related, and allowed an amended complaint within 14 days.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint InsufficientOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three claims, about transportation reimbursement, a transportation pickup problem, and District phone calls to Mother, lacked dates, facts, and any link to a FAPE denial.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it challenged an IEP meeting that had not yet happened, so no actual dispute existed; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District failed to provide a 1:1 aide to Student, who has Down syndrome, gave supporting facts, and proposed resolutions.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Goleta Union's challenge to Student's complaint, finding that leaving out IEP dates did not make the complaint insufficient because the facts gave the District enough notice to prepare.
- Order Partially Granting Notice of Insufficiency With Leave to AmendOAH found six restated FAPE issues sufficiently pleaded but held Student's seizure-monitoring and bullying claims too vague, granting leave to amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's First Amended complaint sufficient after Student added facts, including Parent's limited English ability, the 504 plan's contents, and why the assigned school was inappropriate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite very broad allegations, because it identified the placement and service-implementation problems, related facts, and a proposed resolution, giving District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient as to Hawthorne because every issue lacked basic facts such as what happened, when, and who was involved, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 47-page cross-complaint insufficient because all six claims were vague, lacked time periods and supporting facts, and failed to give Hemet notice of what was alleged.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all six of Student's claims against Lancaster insufficiently pled because they did not identify IEP dates, the specific accommodations or needs at issue, or facts supporting an alleged change in placement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's alleged failures to provide individualized behavior services, to train and supervise behavior staff, and to assess behavior before the May 2014 IEP.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge, because it described Student's two claims with enough facts and stated an adequately defined request for compensatory academic remediation.
- Order Determining Complaint Sufficient in Part and Deficient in PartOAH found Student's child find, assessment, and IEP claims sufficient, but found nine other issues insufficient because no supporting facts were given. Section 504 and Section 1983 claims fall outside OAH jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It clearly alleged that Kernville failed to assess, serve, and hold IEP meetings for Student despite his lack of progress on Section 504 plans, and it stated defined remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its narrative did not clearly state each claim, the supporting facts, or a well-defined proposed resolution, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge, because it gave enough facts about the placement and IEP-timing claims for District to understand the issues.
- Order Determining Complaint Sufficient as to Reed Union School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Reed Union because it clearly alleged child find, faulty eligibility assessment, and IEP failures, and stated proposed remedies to the extent known.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be Insufficient as to Novato Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Novato because, apart from noting Student lives in Novato, it alleged no facts connecting Novato to the claimed child find failures.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying, Without Prejudice, Larkspur-Corte Madera's Motion to Dismiss Student's Second Issue Regarding ReimbursementOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Larkspur-Corte Madera. It denied without prejudice the district's motion to dismiss the reimbursement issue, leaving the remedy-versus-claim question for the prehearing conference.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on one issue, Santa Rosa's failure to hold an IEP meeting since the 2012 IEP, despite a long narrative, and found the request for monetary damages clearly stated.
- Order Determining Complaint to Be SufficientOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because San Juan filed its notice of insufficiency at least 16 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Santa Rosa enough facts about placement changes without prior written notice, the missing transition plan, and exclusion of the education rights holder.
- Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Dismissing Issues Outside OAH JurisdictionOAH found Student's claims about assessments, placement, independent evaluations, and behavior plan implementation sufficiently pleaded, but dismissed Section 504, Section 1983, ADA, and Unruh Act claims as outside its jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's due process complaint sufficient because its five issues and supporting facts gave District enough notice to respond, and its proposed remedies met the legal standard.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's entire complaint insufficient because it never said when the problems arose, which IEPs were disputed, or which assessments and services District failed to provide.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not clearly explain what Chino did wrong or give supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Read with the proposed resolution, its single issue clearly alleged a FAPE denial for failing to provide a one-to-one behavioral aide after a January 2014 assessment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because, despite 16 pages of background on old or time-barred issues, it described specific dated events and people tied to District's alleged FAPE failures in 2012-2013.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against LACOE because its claims against the respondents together gave notice of the issues. LACOE's argument that it is not a proper party belongs in a motion to dismiss.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Torrance's demand for more detail about autism services and goals, because pleadings are liberally construed and Torrance can seek specificity at the prehearing conference.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against the Probation Department, ruling that its claim of no responsibility for Student's education goes to the merits, not to whether notice was adequate.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found eight of Student's sixteen issues sufficient but ruled the other eight insufficient because they made only general claims of a denial of FAPE without saying how or what happened.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District failed to offer a 1:1 nurse in the September 2013 IEP and May 2014 amendment, and proposed specific remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's challenged assessment, the denied independent evaluation request, and the disputed placement offer, with supporting facts and proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its dates, events, and descriptions of the dis-enrollment and transition plan claims gave District enough notice, despite some date errors and loosely defined proposed resolutions.
- Order Granting Notice of Insufficiency With Leave to AmendOAH found Student's handwritten complaint insufficient because it did not state facts showing how District denied a FAPE, and held that inter-district transfer appeals fall outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency and Clarifying IssuesOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and restated the issues for hearing, but dismissed a claim that Student was denied resources given to nondisabled students because OAH lacks jurisdiction over discrimination claims.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described the problems with each challenged IEP since June 2012, gave supporting facts, and proposed specific remedies such as non-public school tuition reimbursement.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on IDEA claims because it gave Academy adequate notice of the placement dispute, but dismissed constitutional, ADA, and other federal claims as outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that Twin Rivers' reading instruction and services were inadequate and requested a one-to-one aide and tutoring.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient. The District's notice of insufficiency was untimely, and the complaint gave enough facts and well-defined proposed resolutions on assessment, services, and IEP meetings.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found four of seven challenged issues insufficient because they did not say whether they alleged procedural or substantive FAPE denials or give time periods, and found the other three sufficient.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss 504 Claims and Determining Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's broad two-year FAPE complaint sufficient because it identified specific IEP meetings and supporting facts. OAH dismissed Student's Section 504 claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of First Amended Due Process Complaint as to Hawthorne School District and Los Angeles County Department of EducationOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient as to Hawthorne and LACOE because it still lumped all agencies together as "the Districts" without saying which agency did what, and allowed 14 days to amend.
- (Amended) Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its six issues did not say whether County, District, or both denied FAPE, or when. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Issues 1 through 4 sufficient and Issues 5 and 6 insufficient, and denied the District's insufficiency challenge to the expedited claims because sufficiency challenges do not apply to expedited complaints.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Potter Valley sufficient, ruling that all four issues and the proposed resolutions gave the district enough notice, even though the general education-program claim could be pled more specifically.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's six-issue complaint insufficient because it did not say whether County, District, or both denied a FAPE, or when. It also noted OAH cannot order an employee fired.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's four-sentence complaint insufficient because it did not identify the IEP at issue, which parts were not implemented, the facts behind the problem, or a proposed remedy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its six issues about District replacing Student's behavioral aide with an educational aide gave District enough facts and a clear proposed resolution.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint Insufficient as to Issues One, Two, Three, and Four, and Partially Insufficient as to Issue FiveOAH found Student's residential placement and IEP-timing claims insufficient for lack of supporting facts, but let four procedural-violation sub-issues proceed and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite excessive history and assessment detail, because it clearly stated three FAPE claims within the two-year limitations period: failure to assess, inadequate IEPs, and failure to implement.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient as to Hawthorne School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Hawthorne School District because it alleged no facts connecting Hawthorne to Student's education or identifying which district was responsible for each claim.
- Order Denying Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Student's notice of insufficiency, finding District's complaint over its triennial assessments and IEP offer gave enough facts and proposed resolutions for Student to prepare for mediation and hearing.
- Order Partially Granting Notice of Insufficiency and Dismissing "Redwood Pediatrics" on OAH's MotionOAH found two of District's three issues sufficient but Issue Three insufficient because it only referenced Parents' letter, and dismissed a private pediatric practice as an improper party.
- Order Finding Student's Complaint Sufficient as to Problems One and Three and Insufficient as to Problems Two, Four, and FiveOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on two problems but insufficient on three, because those problems listed general complaints about teachers and administrators without tying them to Student's IEP or a FAPE denial.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Probation. The facts about denying assessors access to Juvenile Hall were adequate, but the complaint proposed no resolution against Probation.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly described an IEP meeting held without Parents or the nonpublic school providers, a disputed placement offer, and a requested tuition-reimbursement remedy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the issues and enough related facts to let the District respond and prepare.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found only three of Student's 14 issues sufficient, a change of placement without proper procedures, no reevaluation before that change, and no classroom aide, because the rest lacked dates or a clear FAPE connection.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Charter School filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, missing the statutory deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue TwoOAH found Student's general claim that her placement, program, and services did not meet her needs too vague to proceed, and dismissed her Section 504 claim as outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. The proposed resolutions identified the assessment and service areas at issue, and District's argument about repealed behavior regulations belongs in a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Denying Motion to Dismiss; Denying Motion for Bifurcation Without PrejudiceOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because Julian's challenge was late, and refused to dismiss over residency because that factual dispute must be decided at hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that District's offer of a nonpublic school after a residential placement denied a FAPE in the least restrictive environment and proposed a defined remedy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its two claims (predetermination of a March 2014 IEP and failure to offer home hospital instruction) and its proposed resolutions gave District adequate notice.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on all ten issues, ruling each gave District enough facts to prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing, and that the proposed resolutions were adequately stated.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's entire six-issue complaint insufficient because it lacked facts identifying specific IEPs, dates, and problems, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It pleaded 11 FAPE claims across three school years with enough facts, plus a concrete proposed remedy, so Cupertino could prepare for hearing.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found all five of Student's claims insufficient because they described classroom management complaints without tying them to IEP implementation or denial of FAPE, and the proposed resolutions were too vague.
- Order Denying Bakersfield City School District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Bakersfield's notice of insufficiency as untimely because it was filed 16 days after the district received the complaint by fax, so Student's complaint is deemed sufficient.
- Order Denying Greenfield Union School District's and Kern County Superintendent of School's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Greenfield and the Kern County Superintendent because it gave enough facts about the denied aide, transportation, and unilateral placement change to let them prepare a response.
- Order Denying SELPA's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to SELPA because allegations against the collectively defined "respondents" gave SELPA adequate notice of the assessment, placement, services, goals, and predetermination claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's transportation complaint insufficient because it gave no facts showing how District's transportation to the nonpublic placement was unsafe, unreliable, or inappropriate. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, narrowing it to one issue: whether District's February 2014 IEPs denied a FAPE by offering an inappropriate placement at Success Academy.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's amended complaint, read together with the original, sufficient, and held that District's statute of limitations defense needs factual findings at hearing rather than a sufficiency ruling.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issue Two as MootOAH found Student's Issue Two insufficient because enforcing a California Department of Education corrective action raises no IDEA issue, and denied Lodi's motion to dismiss that issue as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint about bullying, child endangerment, and discrimination insufficient because it did not describe a FAPE-related problem or supporting facts; attached emails were not considered.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency, because all nine claims stated the issues, related facts, and proposed remedies clearly enough for District to respond.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave District enough facts about placement, related services, goals, and toileting and medical-care accommodations for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it alleged only a lack of academic progress, without facts on why Student has a specific learning disability or when District became responsible.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency because Student's complaint gave adequate notice of the issues, and District's argument that Student was not a resident went to the merits, not sufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's Issue 5 sufficient, ruling that the claim San Jose failed to give Parent information in Parent's primary language did not need to detail exactly what information was withheld.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged District refused to replace her lost hearing aid, needed to access her education, and asked for a replacement.
- Order Denying District's Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's four claims sufficiently pled, covering transition plan, placement, IEP meetings, and Parent's advocacy role, but limited each to the two-year statute of limitations period.
- Order Determining Complaint Insufficient as to Granada Hills Charter High SchoolOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Granada Hills Charter High School because the form complaint alleged no facts, only yes-or-no questions and remedy requests, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Partial Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found only one of Student's five issues sufficient. The claim that District denied extra support such as tutoring passed; the claims about bus videos, staff training, IEP bus provisions, and mileage reimbursement were too vague.
- Order Declaring Berkeley Unified School District's Notice of Insufficiency to the Original Complaint to Be MootOAH declared Berkeley USD's notice of insufficiency moot because Student's amended complaint replaced the original complaint, and barred further amendments until both districts' time to challenge it passed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against Emery USD because it did not identify which district each claim targeted or the time periods, and Emery's services ended almost five years earlier.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its six claims about IEP implementation, assessment, and academic and behavior needs gave District enough notice, and references to the "current" school year identified the time period.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that alleging an unidentified disability, lack of progress, and delayed assessments gave District enough notice without itemizing every service Student needs.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its single claim, that Val Verde wrongly denied Parent's request for an independent functional behavior assessment, gave the district enough notice to prepare a defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient, ruling that a request for compensatory education 'as will be established at hearing' meets the minimum requirement for a proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Norwalk-La Mirada because it did not say which allegations applied to which of two districts, the basis of the claims, or the remedy sought.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not allege facts about ABC Unified, did not separate claims between the two named districts, and did not state a clear basis or remedy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that missing time frames, unlabeled procedural versus substantive claims, and disputed facts are hearing issues, and that requesting residential treatment placement is an adequate proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its three issues (IEP meeting timing and interpreters, missing OT and counseling services, and wrong grade placement) gave the District notice, and vague remedies can be clarified at prehearing.
- Final Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint, Dismissing Notice of Insufficiency as MootOAH dismissed Lincoln's notice of insufficiency as moot because, in a separate order the same day, it dismissed Student's second amended complaint and the whole case with prejudice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described three FAPE problems with supporting facts and proposed a resolution for each, so all hearing dates stayed in place.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against both District and the county office. Both were alleged to be public agencies that made decisions about Student and provided her services, and the complaint gave them enough notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's demand for more detail on when eligibility should have been found, what services were needed, and why processing areas were suspected.
- Amended Tentative Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint, Dismissing Notice of Insufficiency as MootOAH tentatively dismissed District's notice of insufficiency as moot because, in a separate same-day order, it tentatively dismissed Student's second amended complaint and the whole case with prejudice.
- Order Denying District's Partial Notice of Insufficiency of Student's ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient. It rejected District's argument that Student had to identify each challenged IEP in detail, because several pages of facts gave District enough notice to prepare.
- Order Denying District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Torrance Unified's notice of insufficiency, finding Student's claim that District failed to implement April 2013 IEP accommodations sufficiently pled even without listing each accommodation.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency and Denying Motion to Dismiss for InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on math support, speech assessment, and placement claims, and denied District's motion to dismiss because it rested only on the rejected insufficiency argument.
- Tentative Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint, Dismissing Notice of Insufficiency as MootOAH tentatively dismissed District's notice of insufficiency as moot because a same-day order tentatively dismissed Student's second amended complaint with prejudice, subject to oral argument.
- Order Granting Notices of Insufficiency by Sonoma County Office of Education and Cotati-Rohnert Park Unified School DistrictOAH found Student's handwritten complaint insufficient as to both SCOE and District because it described Parent's strained relationship with the agencies but gave no facts about Student's IEPs, school years, or denial of FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly sought implementation of a previously agreed IEP placing Student in a special day class at a particular elementary school, giving Districts adequate notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's one-paragraph complaint insufficient because it did not say which District conduct denied a FAPE or when, and gave Parent 14 days to amend.
2013
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because the complaint and a follow-up letter only narrated facts without identifying specific issues or explaining how District's actions denied a FAPE; leave to amend granted.
- Order Denying Long Beach Unified School District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Long Beach's notice of insufficiency because Student pleaded specific facts against Long Beach, including an October 2013 IEP held without Parent that offered no residential placement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it raised only a McKinney-Vento homeless school-of-origin claim with no facts about special education eligibility or denial of FAPE, which OAH lacks jurisdiction to hear.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's added claim that the District failed to provide a behavior aide on the school bus sufficient, because read with the whole amended complaint it gave the District adequate notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's demand for more specificity and a closer link between facts and remedies because the complaint met the IDEA's minimal notice requirements.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's assessment and educational-records claims sufficient but ruled the claim that District failed to tailor an appropriate program insufficient because it did not identify which program or IEP was challenged.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency and found Student's seven-issue complaint sufficient, ruling that statute-of-limitations objections cannot be decided through a sufficiency challenge.
- Order Denying District's Notice of Insufficiency of Student's Amended ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling it gave District adequate notice of assessment, placement, implementation, and procedural claims, and that a statute of limitations argument is not a proper basis for insufficiency.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency and Finding Complaint SufficientOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency, finding Student's complaint sufficient because its detailed facts about IEP meetings, placement, and social-skills services put District on notice of both issues.
- Order Granting in Part Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found two of District's procedural sub-issues insufficient because the complaint alleged no facts about a new assessment plan or prior written notice, while the rest of District's complaint was adequately pled.
- Order Partially Granting Student's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found two of District's six issues insufficient because the complaint alleged no facts about an August 2012 IEP or about credentialed substitute teachers, and gave District 14 days to amend.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Torrance Unified's notice of insufficiency, finding all four of Student's issues and six proposed resolutions adequately pled with enough facts to put the District on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found seven issues in Student's second amended complaint sufficient but ruled all other allegations insufficient and denied further leave to amend, because this was Student's third attempt to plead.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Dismissing Claims Beyond the Jurisdiction of OAHOAH dismissed Student's Section 504 claims as outside its jurisdiction. It found three other issues insufficiently pled because they were ambiguous or gave no dates, and it gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain what academics or supports Student needed, or what an appropriate peer group was, and how the District's transition class fell short.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to the Yolo County Office of Education because it described the bus-ride, home-and-hospital, and related-services problems well enough to put YCOE on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the IEP and District prior written notices at issue and gave enough facts for the District to respond to the private school reimbursement claim.
- Order Partially Granting Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found four of Student's five issues sufficiently pleaded but held the related-services issue insufficient because the complaint never identified which services District failed to offer or why Student needed them.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that District's challenge to an issue about a residential placement offer raised a factual dispute for hearing, not a pleading defect.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all nine issues in Student's complaint insufficient because they were vague, internally contradictory, and lacked dates, IEPs, and facts showing how District was responsible.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it reached back to 2008 without saying when Torrance became responsible for Student's education after his move to Starview Adolescent Center.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's third, nearly identical complaint insufficient because it again failed to state what claims were brought against the District or give facts supporting a child find claim; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Denying Antelope Valley Union High School District's Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency as untimely because it was faxed after business hours on the 15th day, so it counted as filed the next day and the amended complaint was deemed sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's disorganized amended complaint sufficient, restating it into three issues about denial of placement, services, and mental health services after his expulsion during the 2011-2012 school year.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient because it alleged enough facts about assessment failures, social-emotional needs, and the need for residential placement to put the District on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Dismissal of Moreno Valley Unified School DistrictOAH found all seven of Student's claims insufficient for lack of supporting facts. On its own motion it dismissed Moreno Valley, because Student enrolled there only after the complaint was filed.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on all three issues, ruling that the alleged eligibility failures and IEP defects gave District enough notice to prepare for resolution, mediation, and hearing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Order to Dismiss San Diego Unified School District as a PartyOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to San Diego Unified and dismissed SDUSD as a party because Student had left SDUSD in 2009, outside the two-year limitations period.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the Southwest SELPA because it alleged no facts showing the SELPA had any responsibility to implement Student's IEP; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all six of Student's claims insufficiently pled because they lacked dates, facts showing District responsibility, and links to the IDEA, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found parts of Student's amended complaint sufficient, including parent-participation, records-access, and assessment-notice claims, but struck many other issues as too vague or lacking facts, allowing another amendment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's brief complaint sufficient because it put the District on notice that the teacher failed to implement Student's Behavior Support Plan, and the proposed resolution met the minimal statutory standard.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because the District's notice of insufficiency was filed late, and the District offered no proof for its claim that it received the full complaint two weeks after filing.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to LACOEOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to LACOE because it never described how LACOE was involved in the interdistrict transfer dispute or any denial of FAPE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it challenged IEPs spanning 2009 to 2013 without making clear which IEPs or school years each claim covered, and its proposed resolutions were vague.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because none of its nine claims included any supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to file an amended complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to the Antelope Valley Union High School DistrictOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Antelope Valley Union High School District because both claims targeted only LACOE, which educated Student at the juvenile hall court school.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave enough facts about the settlement and CAVA's limits on compensatory education providers, along with well-defined proposed resolutions, to put the District and CAVA on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, ruling that whether its facts prove an exception to the two-year statute of limitations belongs in the District's pending motion to dismiss, not a sufficiency challenge.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's notice of insufficiency, because the general facts and issue-specific facts gave the District enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found the District's complaint sufficient, rejecting Student's challenge because Student's own detailed factual defense showed the complaint was not confusing and gave adequate notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its repetitive, unnumbered, disorganized claims made it impossible to tell how many issues there were or what each one was. Student got 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss it. The District's claim that it is not the responsible district, because Parent moved away, is an attempt at summary judgment, which special education law does not allow.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's records-request claim insufficient because it gave no facts on when or how records were requested, but held the claims about unfunded auditory verbal therapy and failure to assess sufficiently pled.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient. It listed only bullet-point facts and a general FAPE claim, without saying which District actions denied FAPE, when they happened, or how.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that District paid for only 20 of the 30 ESY days at a nonpublic school promised in the IEP, and it sought reimbursement.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 22-page complaint sufficient because its detailed facts on five FAPE issues gave the District notice, as shown by the District's own nine-page response.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient on all four issues: although still confusing and poorly worded, it gave the District enough facts to understand and respond to each claim.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Dismissing Claims Beyond OAH's JurisdictionOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite omitting the rights holder's name and address, but dismissed on its own class-action, ADA, Section 504, and discrimination claims as outside its jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Dismissing Claims Beyond OAH's JurisdictionOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite omitting the educational rights holder's name and address, but dismissed class-action, ADA, Section 504, and discrimination claims as beyond OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Dismissing Claims Beyond OAH's JurisdictionOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite the missing rights-holder name and address, but dismissed class-action, ADA, Section 504, and discrimination claims on its own as outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and denied the District's motion to dismiss. The District's mootness and merits arguments were really a summary judgment motion, which California special education law does not allow.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 12 of Student's 14 issues sufficiently pled. Issue 2 (least restrictive environment) gave no explanation and Issue 7 (failure to assess) did not identify the unassessed areas, so both were found insufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's claim that dates were unclear, because the complaint identified the specific assessment period, IEE request dates, and April 1, 2013 IEP at issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain which of Student's unique needs were unmet at her current school or why, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not explain how District failed to provide adequate reading services or when typing software was recommended for occupational therapy.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all five of Student's claims insufficient. The complaint gave no facts about how Student was denied a FAPE or why two nonpublic schools were unsuitable, and it sought criminal findings and an employee's firing, which OAH cannot order.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found seven of Student's ten issues sufficient but ruled the assessment and research-based program claims insufficient because they lacked facts on which areas went unassessed and which program was deficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it said violations spanned 2008 to 2013 without naming the school years each one occurred, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it gave only a general narrative of the 2012-2013 school year without stating any specific issues, and allowed Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because all three issues lacked facts showing how the District denied a FAPE, allowed a second amendment, and denied the District's motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its assessment and interpreter claims were confusing or missing key facts like dates and which IEP meetings were involved. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied District's notice of insufficiency, finding Student's complaint, with four problems, 31 sub-issues, 59 paragraphs of facts, and proposed resolutions, gave District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave enough facts about assessments, goals, services, and the unclear IEP offer to put the District on notice, and proposed well-defined resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its detailed 19-page factual statement gave District notice of the claims, even though District's insufficiency notice addressed issues not in Student's complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient against TJUSD and SJCOE because its single claim about an out-of-community placement did not identify the placement, the responsible agency, the time frame, or how FAPE was denied.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all six of Student's claims insufficiently pled because they lacked key facts such as dates, documents, and how Student's education was harmed. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient on one issue: whether District's math goals and teaching methods denied a FAPE from May 2011 to May 2013. The short complaint gave District enough notice to respond.
- Order Determining Amended Complaint to Be Insufficiently Pled in Its EntiretyOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient in its entirety because it made sweeping claims about regression, classroom seating, and an altered report card without facts about eligibility, the IEP, or services.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its claims about missing instruction, fabricated present levels, alleged abuse, failure to assess behavior, and nonpublic school placement gave the District enough notice.
- Order Determining Due Process Complaint to Be Sufficient as PleadOAH found Student's child-find complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's challenge because the complaint included over 25 pages of facts, including private assessments finding Student eligible for special education.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of First Amended Complaint by Lake ElsinoreOAH denied Lake Elsinore's challenge to Student's amended complaint, finding the claims against it sufficiently pled because the district's own arguments showed it understood the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite its narrative, unnumbered format, because it named three school years of alleged FAPE denial and gave enough facts for District to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found 12 of Student's 18 issues insufficiently pled because they were bullet-point allegations without time frames, specific IEPs, or supporting facts tied to each issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to LACOE because it pled claims and remedies only against District and alleged no LACOE action or inaction that denied Student a FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's notice of insufficiency because 26 pages of detailed facts clearly identified each issue.
- Order Partially Granting Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found four of Student's five issues sufficient but ruled the change-of-placement-without-prior-written-notice claim insufficient because no facts tied any placement change to District, granting leave to amend.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Strike Notice of InsufficiencyOAH denied Student's motion to strike San Luis Coastal's notice of insufficiency because the motion was not authorized and was moot, since OAH had already found Student's complaint sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 17-issue complaint against Torrance Unified sufficient because it explained Student's behaviors, the missing goals, the behavior plan problems, and the procedural violations well enough to give the District notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it listed classroom grievances without alleging eligibility, a disability, a disputed IEP, or how the District denied a FAPE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to LACOE because, beyond naming it, the complaint alleged no facts, responsibility, or remedies involving LACOE; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, in PartOAH dismissed four of Student's six claims about uniform complaints and staff conduct as outside its jurisdiction, and found the two remaining claims insufficiently pled, with leave to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against San Luis because it gave enough facts about assessments, goals, services, and failure to implement the prior IEP, plus well-defined proposed resolutions.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Dismissal of Student's Motion to Strike Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against Lake Elsinore, noting the district's own factual defenses showed it understood Issue One, and dismissed Student's motion to strike the notice as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint against Torrance sufficient because all four issues and the proposed remedies gave the district enough facts to understand the claims, prepare a defense, and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Amended Due Process Complaint and Request to Reissue Scheduling OrderOAH found Student's amended complaint against two districts sufficient. It said the complaint did not need to separate allegations or remedies for each district, because it stated when Student attended each one.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite agreeing it was convoluted and hard to follow, because it still contained 15 concrete issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions.
- Final Order Denying Notice of InsufficiencyOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its facts about failing grades, unmet and repeated 5th-grade-level IEP goals, and inadequate services gave District notice of a single FAPE claim.
- Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency and Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint sufficient and denied District's motion to dismiss because the complaint gave District enough notice of a single FAPE issue about unmet math and writing needs.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order on Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a narrative of facts with no delineated issues, gave leave to amend within 14 days, and declared the District's motion to dismiss moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because, apart from a child find reference, its five fact paragraphs never identified what issues were being claimed against the District; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency because statute-of-limitations exceptions and factual disputes require a hearing, and District's promotion-jurisdiction argument had already been denied.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's bullying claim sufficiently pled, ruling that details about each bullying incident and its effect on Student's education are matters for proof at hearing, not required for notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's challenge, because it described failures to assess, convene an IEP meeting, find eligibility, and offer FAPE with enough facts to give notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described Student's success at a private parochial school but not what was wrong with the District's IEP offer. A claim about a spring 2014 evaluation was too speculative.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's assessment, assistive technology, and one-to-one aide claims sufficient, but held six other claims insufficient because they were not tied to specific supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 25-page complaint insufficient because its proposed issues and described problems did not match, and it failed to identify which IEPs and services were at issue.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found eleven of Student's twelve issues sufficiently pled. Issue Six, a claim of an inadequate educational program, was insufficient because it did not explain what part of the program failed Student's needs.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never alleged a denial of FAPE, gave no facts on how or when one occurred, and offered no clear remedy; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH denied LACOE's notice of insufficiency because Student's complaint gave enough facts about his juvenile court school attendance and FAPE claims to let LACOE prepare and participate in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 12-issue complaint against Torrance Unified sufficient, because the supporting facts gave the District adequate notice of the allegations and time periods, even though some issue headings were broad.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found the 19-year-old Student's complaint against Torrance Unified sufficient, ruling all five FAPE issues and the proposed remedies gave District enough notice to prepare a defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed District's complaint sufficient because Student's notice of insufficiency was filed more than 15 days after Parent received the complaint by overnight mail.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Riverside Unified School District and Rich MillerOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Riverside Unified and its superintendent because it gave no specific facts on what the district did wrong within the two-year limitations period.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Riverside County Mental HealthOAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Riverside County Mental Health because its joinder in other agencies' insufficiency notices was likely untimely and those notices never addressed the allegations against it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Riverside County Office of Education and Superintendent Kenneth YoungOAH found Student's assessment, procedural, and civil-rights claims against RCOE sufficiently pled. It found the records-request claim and the Section 1983 claim against Superintendent Young too vague, and allowed amendment.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its brief allegations of an inappropriate classroom placement and a discontinued tutor gave SVUSD enough notice of the claims.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's hostile-environment and retaliation claims against Junction insufficiently pled because they did not say which staff did what or when; all other issues were sufficient.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its seven FAPE issues and supporting facts gave District enough notice to respond, and that its proposed resolutions were well-defined.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's six-issue complaint against Fillmore Unified sufficient, ruling that the bullying, teacher conduct, suspension, academic program, homework, and assessment claims gave District enough notice to prepare a defense.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient on all four issues because they alleged ADA and Unruh Act violations about Parents attending assessments, not a denial of FAPE, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's four-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting the District's notice of insufficiency, because its nearly 17 pages of facts and issue-specific allegations gave the District enough information to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient as to El Rancho Unified because the district filed its notice of insufficiency 21 days after the complaint, past the 15-day deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it only said "see pg #10 on IEP" and attached one undated IEP page, with no description of the problem, facts, or proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Second Amended Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's second amended complaint insufficient because it never explained how the District denied Student a FAPE, and allowed 14 days to file a third amended complaint.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it mixed well-pled child find and assessment claims with other facts that could be background, extra claims, or proposed resolutions, leaving District without clear notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient because it clearly stated one issue: whether District may finish Student's triennial assessment without Parents requiring that they be allowed to observe standardized testing.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient because it described a disagreement over District's financial responsibility for Student after Student moved to another district, and it proposed a resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Denying Motion to DismissOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to the Monterey County Office of Education because all three issues alleged violations only by the District, and denied MCOE's motion to dismiss as moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's argument about medical diagnosis as a disguised summary judgment motion and holding the facts gave adequate notice of the issues.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that a prior settlement agreement and factual disputes about assessments and IEP meetings cannot be raised through a notice of insufficiency.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint about the District's refusal to train staff to handle Student's companion dog insufficient because neither the complaint nor the addendum clearly described the problem or how it denied FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint insufficient because it alleged only a procedural violation, with no facts showing how the placement denied a FAPE and no well-defined proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described District's alleged failures to assess, set goals, provide services, and place Student over three school years, with clear proposed remedies.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not say which school years were at issue, which was critical given a possible statute of limitations problem, and found the District's dismissal motion moot.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it cited no legal basis and its own attachments showed proper IEP meeting notice, but gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never explained why the District's alternative placement would not work or what placement and services Student needs, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Dismissing Issue 13OAH found Student's parental-participation issue sufficient but the issue about District's counsel unclear and insufficient, and dismissed the Section 504 retaliation claim as outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Determining District's Complaint to Be InsufficientOAH found District's complaint insufficient because it was unclear whether District was responding to an IEE request, seeking to assess without parental consent, or something else; District may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's due process complaint sufficient, rejecting District's demand for more factual detail because the complaint clearly stated the issues and gave enough facts for District to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found all four of Student's claims insufficient because they did not identify what legal violations were alleged, and the complaint offered no proposed resolutions. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it clearly alleged that District and RCOE neither offered an appropriate placement after Parents rejected the offered class nor filed for due process as Education Code section 56346(f) requires.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found three of Student's four claims sufficient, covering reimbursement for tutoring and counseling and a request for therapy, but found an attorney-fee dispute claim insufficient because it alleged no denial of FAPE.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 304-page complaint insufficient because it was confusing, did not separate the issues from supporting documents, and only partly reached the District. OAH also lacks jurisdiction to enforce or void settlements.
- Amended Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's 304-page complaint insufficient because it was incoherent, mixed issues with exhibits, and sought remedies OAH cannot grant: enforcing or voiding a settlement agreement. OAH allowed 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's procedural-violation claim against California Virtual Academy sufficient but ruled the claim that teachers lacked copies of the IEP insufficient because no facts supported it.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient because its single issue, whether the May 2012 IEP as revised in October and November 2012 offered FAPE in the LRE, gave Student fair notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed District's complaint sufficient because Student's notice of insufficiency, sent by overnight mail, reached OAH 16 days after the complaint was served, missing the 15-day deadline.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its detailed facts and four FAPE issues, covering assessments, goals and services, records access, and Spanish translation of IEPs, gave the District enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's seven-claim complaint insufficient because it gave no context about Student's special education status, IEP, or the people and schools named. Student was given 14 days to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its seven claims about a preschool autism placement and its proposed resolutions gave District enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH refused to apply District's insufficiency challenge to Student's expedited discipline claims and found the non-expedited complaint sufficient on one issue: failure to implement the behavior support plan in Student's IEP.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its claims about missing behavior and occupational therapy assessments and January 2013 IEP offers gave District enough notice, even without detailed 'how or why' facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found District's complaint sufficient, rejecting Student's notice of insufficiency, because its placement allegations and requested order placing Student at East Hills Academy gave Student enough notice to respond.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's non-expedited issues sufficiently pled. It held that the manifestation determination issues must go to an expedited hearing, where a notice of insufficiency cannot be used.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's one-line complaint that he was denied individual tutoring insufficient because it did not explain his special education status, IEP, or facts supporting the claim; Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found most of Student's amended complaint sufficient, but held the claims that SCCOE failed to assess behavior and academics insufficient because no facts showed SCCOE needed to assess those areas.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient because its three claims (one-to-one aide, AAC assessment and device, and speech and language services) and proposed resolutions gave the District adequate notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that allegations about missing training on an AAC device and inadequate speech therapy gave District enough notice despite being somewhat disjointed.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it described the problems with the December 2012 IEP and gave enough supporting facts for District to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient against LACOE because it adequately described Student's unique needs, the assessments LACOE should have done after Student entered juvenile hall, and a well-defined proposed resolution.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave enough facts about assessment, goals, and placement claims, and well-defined proposed resolutions, to put the District on notice.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found most of Student's 14 issues sufficient but struck the behavior and reading claims because they were buried in a rambling narrative and inflammatory commentary. Student may amend within 14 days.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint Based on MootnessOAH found District's notice of insufficiency moot because Student's later-filed complaint, treated as an amended complaint, replaced the original complaint District challenged.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its specific allegations about class ratio, speech therapy, assistive technology, and occupational therapy gave the District enough notice to respond.
- Corrected Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claims about occupational therapy and assistive technology assessments and records production sufficient, but found the behavior, health, academic assessment, goals and services, and Issue 3 claims lacked supporting facts.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's claims about missing occupational therapy and assistive technology assessments and withheld records sufficient. It found the other assessment claims and the goals-and-services claim too vague, and allowed Student to amend.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting District's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the issues and enough related facts for District to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against LACOE because Student alleged attending a LACOE juvenile hall school and ongoing failures by both respondents to assess and provide counseling.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint sufficient against LACOE because it alleged Student attends a LACOE school and that neither agency offered assessments that could identify Student's needs.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Green Dot because it did not make clear which facts applied to which of the three agencies named, so Green Dot would have to guess.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint and Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH found all six issues in Student's complaint insufficient for lacking dates, IEP references, and facts tying events to FAPE, but denied District's motion to dismiss because the issues were not clearly outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process ComplaintOAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient as to the District because the District joined SCOE's notice of insufficiency 17 days after service, past the 15-day deadline. An intervening holiday did not extend that deadline.