California OAH special education order · August 28, 2013
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013061090 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied CDE's request to reconsider the ruling keeping it in the case. A different ALJ's arguably inconsistent ruling in another case is not a new fact or new law justifying reconsideration.
Summary
In July 2013, OAH denied the California Department of Education's motion to dismiss and found CDE was a proper party to Student's due process case. CDE then asked OAH to reconsider, pointing to a ruling by another ALJ in a different case that arguably conflicted with that decision. Student opposed. OAH denied reconsideration because CDE offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and a ruling in another matter based on different briefing does not justify reconsideration.
Why it matters
A party cannot reopen a ruling just by citing a conflicting OAH order from another case; reconsideration requires genuinely new facts or law. This helps parents keep the state education agency in a case once OAH has found it is a proper party.
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. 2013061090
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
On July 16, 2013, the undersigned administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an order denying the Motion to Dismiss by the California Department of Education (CDE), finding that CDE was a proper party to this due process matter. On August 16, 2013, CDE filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On August 20, 2013, Student opposed. On August 21, 2013, CDE filed a reply to Student’s opposition. On August 22, 2013, both parties filed additional supplemental briefs. As discussed below, CDE’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings 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.)
DISCUSSION
CDE alleges no new facts or law in support of the request for reconsideration. The basis for CDE’s Motion is that another ALJ’s ruling, on a motion in a different due process matter, was arguably inconsistent with the ruling at issue herein. This is not a basis for reconsideration, as no new or different facts or law are presented. The circumstances of a different ruling in a different matter, relying on different underlying briefing and argument, is not a circumstance justifying reconsideration here.
ORDER
California Department of Education’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
Dated: August 28, 2013 /s/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings