California OAH special education order · February 20, 2014
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2014010254 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied District's second continuance request, treated as reconsideration, because District offered no new facts or law and did not explain why it had not raised its director's unavailability earlier.
Summary
After OAH granted District a continuance but not to the dates District wanted, District filed another motion to continue, which OAH treated as a motion for reconsideration. Student opposed. OAH denied the motion because District again relied on its counsel's unavailability, which the earlier order had already rejected as good cause. District also cited its Director of Special Education's unavailability but gave no reason for failing to raise that fact, which it already knew, in its original motion.
Why it matters
A party cannot get a second try at a continuance by repeating arguments OAH already rejected; reconsideration requires new facts or law, plus an explanation for not raising known facts earlier. Parents opposing repeated delay requests can point to this standard.
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. 2014010254
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On February 11, 2014, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting District’s Motion to Continue, but not to the dates District had proposed (Order). On February 12, 2014, District filed another Motion to Continue, which is treated as a Motion for Reconsideration (Motion). On February 19, 2014, Student opposed. As discussed below the Motion is denied. The matter will proceed on the currently scheduled dates.
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
District states no newly-discovered facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request for reconsideration. As before, District bases its request for a continuance on the unavailability of its counsel. However, the Order already rejected counsel’s “exclusive relationship to represent District” as not constituting good cause for a continuance. District’s Motion also states that its Director of Special Education will be unavailable on the currently scheduled dates; however no reason is given for District’s failure to previously provide this information, which was known at the time of District’s original Motion to Continue. Thus, the Motion is denied. The matter will proceed on the currently scheduled dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 20, 2014
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings