California OAH special education order · September 16, 2014
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013040212 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the 2013 dismissal of the case because it came more than a year late, well past the 10-day deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.
This case went to decision
Torrance Unified School District v. Student: Torrance Unified may complete a triennial assessment without parental consent or parents present; FAPE obligation ends if student not presented. (2013)
Summary
Student, through Parent, filed a 'Notice for Rehearing or Dismissal of Ruling,' which OAH treated as a motion to reconsider its 2013 orders dismissing the case. The case had been dismissed because Student never filed an amended complaint after the original ADA and Unruh Act claims were found insufficient. OAH denied the motion. It was filed more than a year after the dismissal orders, far beyond the 10-day limit in Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The motion also seemed to attack a decision in a different OAH case and gave no reason for the delay or for the failure to amend.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requests must be filed quickly, generally within 10 days, and must show new facts, circumstances, or law. Families who receive an insufficiency order should file an amended complaint by the deadline or risk having the case dismissed.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Stella Owens-Murrell, Administrative Law Judge (prior insufficiency and dismissal orders)
- Kopec, Division Presiding Administrative Law Judge (prior dismissal order)
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2013040212 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On September 9, 2014, Student, through his parent, filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Notice for Rehearing or Dismissal of Ruling with Good Cause Showing. Student is attempting to seek reconsideration of two written orders of OAH, which dismissed the instant matter. Student’s pleading is deemed a motion for reconsideration of OAH’s orders of dismissal in 2013.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF CASE
On April 5, 2013, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint) with OAH. The complaint alleged four issues pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Unruh Act.
On April 19, 2013, Torrance Unified School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency.
On April 22, 2013, OAH, per ALJ Stella Owens-Murrell, found that all four issues were insufficient and permitted Student to file an amended complaint within 14 days from the date of the order. Student failed to file an amended complaint.
On May 8, 2013, Torrance filed with OAH a request to dismiss the matter with prejudice for failing to file an amended complaint. Student filed an objection to the motion on May 14, 2013 and an opposition on May 15, 2013. Torrance filed a reply to Student’s opposition. On May 16, 2013, Student filed an objection to Torrance filing its reply.
On May 20, 2013, OAH, by ALJ Owens-Murrell, issued an order dismissing the matter without prejudice. On July 20, 2013, OAH, by Division Presiding Administrative Law Judge Kopec, issued another order dismissing the matter on grounds of failure to file an amended complaint.
DISCUSSION
Student’s convoluted motion is almost 11 pages long. Student appears to be attacking a decision rendered by OAH in another case (OAH Case No. 2013010162). Student makes no real reference to the instant matter. Student neither fails to address the delay in seeking reconsideration of OAH’s dismissal orders timely nor cites any reason why she failed to timely file an amended complaint per the April 22, 2013 order.
OAH will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.) Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 requires that a motion or request to reconsider a ruling must be filed within 10 days of the entry of the order.
Thus, even if Student was requesting a reconsideration of the May 20, 2013 order or the July 13, 2013 order dismissing the matter, Student has failed to timely file her motion.
Accordingly, Student’s motion is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
DATE: September 16, 2014
/ S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings