California OAH special education order · January 22, 2014
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013090110 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the dismissals of CAVA and District because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and the case stays closed.
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider two earlier orders that dismissed Student's due process complaint against California Virtual Academies (CAVA) and West Covina Unified School District. OAH found the request timely but denied it because every argument had already been considered in the dismissal orders. Student's federal-regulation timeline and notice arguments did not change the result. OAH also repeated that it had no facts showing Student was enrolled in CAVA or was a District resident or student after December 22, 2011, and that fraud claims are outside its jurisdiction.
Why it matters
Reconsideration needs genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, not a rerun of arguments already made. Families should put facts showing current enrollment or residency in the original complaint or opposition, because OAH cannot order a district or charter to provide FAPE without them.
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. 2013090110
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On September 3, 2013, Student filed a due process complaint (Complaint) against West Covina Unified School District (District) and California Virtual Academies (CAVA).
On December 27, 2013, CAVA filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. On January 2, 2014, Student filed an opposition to CAVA’s motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2014, OAH granted CAVA’s motion to dismiss. On January 7, 2014, District filed a motion to dismiss.
Student filed a written response to District’s motion to dismiss, and the parties argued the matter during a prehearing conference on January 10, 2014. On January 15, 2014, OAH granted District’s motion to dismiss and the case was closed. On January 17, 2014, Student filed a request for reconsideration as to the order granting CAVA’s dismissal, and included arguments for reconsideration as to the order granting District’s dismissal (Motion). The Motion is treated as a motion for reconsideration of the orders dismissing CAVA and District.
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 AND ORDER
The Motion was timely filed. However, Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. All of the evidence and arguments made in the Motion had been considered by OAH in its two orders dismissing CAVA and District.
Student’s citation to the Code of Federal Regulations to support the argument that neither CAVA, nor District, followed the timeframe and notice requirement under the Code of Federal Regulations, does not justify reconsideration. The procedures listed in the Code of Federal Regulations do not apply to cases filed with OAH, which is a state agency.
Although Student asserts that the September 28, 2011 settlement agreement did not release CAVA from the provision of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) after December 22, 2011, the fact remains that Student had been dis-enrolled from CAVA by December 22, 2011 and Student did not provide any facts supporting OAH’s jurisdiction over CAVA after that date. Further, OAH has no jurisdiction to order CAVA or District to provide a FAPE to Student when OAH has no facts supporting that Student had been a resident of District and had been enrolled in CAVA, or in a District school, after December 22, 2011. Student’s contentions of fraud by CAVA and District are also not within OAH’s jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied and no further action will be taken. The matter remains closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2014 /s/
SABRINA KONG
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings