California OAH special education order · July 9, 2013
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Confirming Order Granting District Extension of Time to Respond to Stay Put Motion
OAH Case No. 2013060923 · ALJ Margaret Broussard
OAH reconsidered, then confirmed, its order giving District extra time to oppose Student's stay put motion, because District acted promptly and Student suffered no prejudice before any stay put ruling.
Summary
District filed a mistitled motion, which OAH treated as a request for more time to respond to Student's stay put motion, and OAH granted it until July 5, 2013. Student asked OAH to reconsider because Student never received a copy of District's request and argued it was untimely. OAH granted reconsideration and heard Student's arguments, but it confirmed the extension. OAH found that District asked for more time one day after learning of the stay put motion, gave a reasonable explanation, and caused no prejudice because stay put had not yet been decided and Student had filed a reply.
Why it matters
OAH will reconsider an order a party never had a chance to oppose, such as when it was not served with the request. But a short extension to oppose a stay put motion will usually stand if the other side acted promptly and no ruling has been made yet.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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. 2013060923
v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL CONFIRMING ORDER GRANTING
DISTRICT. DISTRICT EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO STAY PUT MOTION.
On June 20, 2013, Student filed a motion for stay put. On June 27, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) issued an order requesting supplemental briefing on the issue of stay put. On June 28, 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) filed a motion titled “motion for reconsideration of motion granting joinder” with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). 1 Based upon the contents of the motion, the District’s motion was deemed a request for an extension of time to respond to Student’s motion for stay put.
On July 2, 2013, the undersigned administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an order granting a short extension of time, until July 5, 2013, for the District to respond to Student’s motion for stay put. On July 2, 2013, Student filed a request for reconsideration of the order granting the District an extension and argued against the extension of time. On July 5, 2013, the District filed an opposition to the motion for stay put. On July 8, 2013, Student filed a reply to the District’s opposition to the motion for stay put. As discussed below, Student’s motion for reconsideration of the order extending time is granted and the previous order extending time for the District to respond to the stay put motion is confirmed.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings (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.)
This motion is mistitled. There was no previous motion for joinder in this matter.
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Student alleges new facts and circumstances in support of the request reconsideration.
Student contends that he did not receive a copy of the District’s request for an extension of time to respond to his motion for stay put, and, therefore, was not aware of the District’s request for an extension until he received the order granting the extension of time. Student asks that the order granting the extension of time be reconsidered and denied. Student’s motion for reconsideration is granted.
After considering Student’s arguments against granting the District an extension of time, the motion to extend time for the District to respond to the stay put motion is confirmed. The District has provided a reasonable explanation for its failure to respond to the original stay put motion. Student claims that the District did not timely request the extension to respond to the stay put motion. However, the District filed the motion to request an extension of time one day after it became aware of the stay put motion. As there has not yet been a ruling on Student’s stay put motion, there is no prejudice to Student in OAH’s considering the District’s opposition to the stay put motion, which was filed on July 5, 2013.
The Student submitted his reply to the District’s opposition on July 8, 2013, pursuant to the order granting the extension of time. Both the District’s opposition and the Student’s reply will be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 09, 2013 /s/
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings