California OAH special education order · April 25, 2014
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2014030356 · ALJ Margaret Broussard
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider an order that only partly granted a continuance, because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and no sworn declaration.
Summary
After OAH issued an order setting mediation, partially granting Student's continuance request, and vacating and confirming hearing dates, Oakland filed an opposition to the continuance and Student filed a "Response to District's Objection." Because Oakland's opposition matched the order, OAH did not treat it as a reconsideration request. Student's filing did conflict with the order, so OAH treated it as a motion for reconsideration. OAH denied it because Student alleged no new facts, circumstances, or law and did not attach a sworn declaration.
Why it matters
A party who wants OAH to change a scheduling ruling must show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, ideally supported by a sworn declaration. Simply re-arguing the original request will not succeed.
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. 2014030356 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On April 24, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting the parties request to set mediation, partially granting a request for a continuance and vacating and confirming hearing dates. After the order was completed, but before the order was served, the Oakland Unified School District (Oakland) filed an opposition to the Student’s request for a continuance and Student filed a document titled “Response to District’s Objection.” Oakland’s opposition was consistent with the order issued and, therefore, is not being considered a motion for reconsideration. Student’s filing, however, is inconsistent with the order and is being considered a motion for reconsideration on behalf of Student.
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
Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration and the motion is not accompanied by a sworn declaration. Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 25, 2014 /s/
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings