California OAH special education order · October 25, 2013
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013070381 · ALJ Richard T. Breen
OAH denied the parties' joint request to reconsider its denial of a second continuance because the supposed new fact, an August 2013 interim agreement, had already been considered.
Summary
On October 24, 2013, OAH denied the parties' second request for a continuance for lack of good cause. That order expressly said good cause was lacking even if the interim agreement was signed in August 2013. The next day the parties jointly asked for reconsideration, saying the interim agreement was reached in August, not April as they had mistakenly stated. OAH denied reconsideration because this 'new' fact had already been considered and did not change the result.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law. Correcting a detail the judge already took into account will not succeed, even when both sides agree. Parties seeking a long continuance should show good cause clearly and accurately the first time.
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. 2013070381
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On October 24, 2013, OAH issued an order denying a second request for a continuance on the ground that good cause had not been shown. The order denying the continuance expressly stated: “Even if the ‘interim’ agreement was executed in August of 2013, good cause was not shown for a continuance of this length.” On October 25, 2013, the parties filed a request for reconsideration on the ground that there was a new fact, i.e., that an interim agreement had been reached in August of 2013, not April of 2013, as erroneously recited by the parties.
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.)
Here, the new “fact” raised by the parties in their motion for reconsideration had already been considered by OAH. Accordingly, reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 25, 2013 /s/
RICHARD T. BREEN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings