California OAH special education order · November 8, 2013
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2013100372 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH denied District's request to reconsider a stay put order because Student faxed the papers to District's Office of General Counsel, which was proper service and not a new fact.
Summary
After OAH granted Student's motion for stay put, District asked for reconsideration. District argued it was not properly served because Student used a fax number different from the one listed on District's 'Directions to File for Due Process' notice. OAH found that the fax number Student used belonged to District's Office of General Counsel, the same number shown on District's own motion. Sending the papers directly to counsel was not a new fact justifying reconsideration and likely gave District more time to respond, so the request was denied. Student did not respond to the motion.
Why it matters
A district cannot undo a stay put order by claiming bad service when the papers went straight to its own legal counsel's fax line. Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law.
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. 2013100372
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On October 21, 2013, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting Student’s Motion for Stay Put. On November 4, 2013, Los Angeles Unified School District (District) filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds Student did not properly serve Student’s request for due process hearing or the motion for stay put on District.
Student did not respond to the motion for reconsideration.
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.)
District contends it was not properly served because the fax number appearing on the proof of service is different from the fax number designated by District on a notice provided to families entitled “Directions to File for Due Process.” However, the fax number set forth in the proof of service is the fax number for District’s Office of General Counsel, and is the fax number that appears on District’s motion for reconsideration and the pleadings attached.
The fact that service of the motion for stay put went directly to General Counsel’s fax line does not amount to a new fact justifying reconsideration. If anything, it appears that because the motion for stay put was faxed directly to counsel, there would have been more time to respond rather than less. Accordingly, District’s request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 08, 2013 /s/
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings