California OAH special education order · September 3, 2013
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013070957 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the dismissal of Monterey County Office of Education because Student repeated the same arguments and cases instead of offering new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
OAH had granted Monterey County Office of Education's (MCOE) motion to be dismissed as a party. Student asked OAH to reconsider, saying the ruling was "in error," and MCOE opposed. OAH denied the request because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and simply disagreed with the ruling, repeating the arguments and case law from the original opposition. A separate order will address Student's amended complaint, which was filed after the reconsideration motion.
Why it matters
A motion for reconsideration at OAH must be based on new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Repeating the arguments OAH already rejected will not work, so families should put their strongest arguments into the original opposition.
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. 2013070957
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
GREENFIELD UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT, KING CITY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SOLEDAD
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On July 22, 2013, Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint). On August 2, 2013, MCOE filed a motion to be dismissed as a party. On August 15, 2013, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting a motion to dismiss filed by Monterey County Office of Education (MCOE). On August 20, 2013, Student filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds the August 15, 2013 Order was “in error.” On August 21, 2013, MCOE filed an opposition to the reconsideration request. 1 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, Student offers no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request for reconsideration. Student makes the same argument made in his original opposition, and cites the same case law, instead, Student simply disagrees with the ruling. OAH does not reconsider a ruling without the requisite showing of new facts, circumstances or law.
Accordingly, Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Dated: September 3, 2013 /s/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Student filed an amended complaint on August 23, 2013. The motion for reconsideration is unaffected by that filing and a separate order as to the amended complaint will be issued.