California OAH special education order · June 2, 2014
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration and Motion to Continue
OAH Case No. 2014010263 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Oakland's request to reconsider and further continue the August 2014 hearing because it offered no new facts and its summer staff and attorney scheduling claims did not show good cause.
Summary
Oakland had already received a continuance setting the hearing for August 5, 2014. It then asked OAH to reconsider, or in the alternative to move the hearing to September 2014, arguing that staff were unavailable during the summer. Student did not respond. OAH denied both requests. Oakland presented no new facts, since the summer schedules were known when it made its first request. Two employees gave no specific reason for being unavailable, and another employee could testify about district policy in place of the third. Oakland's attorney had no conflicting hearing the week of August 5.
Why it matters
A party seeking reconsideration must bring new facts it could not have raised before. Summer break and general staff unavailability alone do not establish good cause for continuing a due process hearing, especially when other witnesses could testify to the same topics.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
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. 2014010263 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL TO CONTINUE
DISTRICT.
On May 22, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting Oakland Unified School District’s (Oakland) request for a continuance and scheduling the hearing to commence on August 5, 2014. On May 23, 2013, Oakland filed a request for reconsideration or in the alternative a motion to continue the scheduled hearing dates to September 2014. Student did not file a response to the motions.
APPLICABLE LAW
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.)
Continuance A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance;
and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
DISCUSSION
Oakland’s motion for reconsideration is denied because Oakland did not present new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Moreover, the information provided by Oakland in support of its motion for reconsideration, like the summer schedules of its attorney and employees, was known or could have been known to Oakland at the time it filed its initial request but was not submitted for consideration at that time.
Oakland asserts that it will be prejudiced if forced to conduct a hearing during the summer months when school is not in session because many employees are not available. In support of its position, Oakland submitted four declarations, three from Oakland employees and one from Oakland’s attorney. In their declarations, two Oakland employees assert that they are unavailable during most of July and August without providing the specific reason for the unavailability. The third employee indicates he will be out of the county until August 11, 2014. According to his declaration, he will be testifying not about the Student specifically but about Oakland’s policies and practices with regard to residential placement for educational purposes. There is no indication that another employee from Oakland would not be able to testify regarding the same topic.
Finally, Oakland’s attorney submitted a declaration providing the other hearings that she is scheduled to conduct during August. According to the declaration, however, she is not scheduled for any other hearings during the week of August 5, 2014, when this matter is scheduled to commence.
Oakland has not established good cause for an additional continuance. Therefore, the request is denied.
ORDER
1. Motion for reconsideration denied.
2. Motion for continuance denied.
3. All previously calendared dates to remain.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 2, 2014
/S/
JOY REDMON
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Office of Administrative Hearings