California OAH special education order · April 23, 2014
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration, Granting in Part Request to Vacate April 16, 2014 Order, and Confirming Hearing Dates
OAH Case No. 2014030697 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH reconsidered its prior order because District never received Parent's filings, restoring District's 30-day resolution session period but keeping the continuance and the August 5, 2014 hearing date.
Summary
District asked OAH to reconsider and reverse an April 16, 2014 order that started the hearing timelines and continued the hearing. District said it never received Parent's continuance requests, which had no proof of service. OAH granted reconsideration and struck the language starting the hearing timelines, so the parties have 30 days from April 8, 2014 to hold a resolution session. OAH refused to undo the continuance because Parent had shown good cause and District gave no credible reason to vacate it, so all hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Every filing sent to OAH must also be served on the other side, with a proof of service. If it is not, OAH may reopen orders based on that filing. The ALJ also told both sides to work out a resolution session date themselves instead of repeatedly asking OAH for relief.
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. § 300.510(b)(5)
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:
OAH CASE NO. 2014030697
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
v. RECONSIDERATION, GRANTING IN
PART REQUEST TO VACATE APRIL
BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. 16, 2014 ORDER, AND CONFIRMING
HEARING DATES
Student filed a request for due process hearing only on March 17, 2014. On March 20, 2014, Student filed a unilateral request for continuance, which the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) denied without prejudice on March 26, 2014. On April 4, 2014, District filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Parent had not participated in a mandatory resolution session. On April 7, 2014, Student timely filed a response to District’s motion and renewed her request for a continuance. On April 8, 2014, OAH issued an order denying Student’s request for continuance as moot, denying District’s motion to dismiss, and resetting timelines to allow time for a resolution session. On April 10, 2014, Student filed a request for continuance and for a “conflict resolution” meeting.
District did not respond. On April 13, 2014, Student filed a notice regarding resolution session and requested a continuance. District did not respond.
On April 16, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order setting the hearing timelines and continuing the due process hearing for good cause. On April 21, 2014, District filed a motion for reconsideration, of the April 16, 2014 Order, or alternatively responding to Student’s request for a “conflict resolution” meeting and a continuance. Parent did not respond.
As discussed below, District’s motion for reconsideration is granted, its motion to vacate the April 16, 2014 Order is partially granted, and all hearing dates set in the April 16, 2014 Order are confirmed.
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
District credibly contends that it did not receive Mother’s April 9, 2014 and April 13, 2014 filings with OAH, thereby claiming it could not respond to Mother’s second request for continuance. The requests by Mother filed with OAH do not show that notice was given to the District. Notice is usually shown by including a “proof of service,” which means a declaration of how notice was provided (fax, mail, messenger, hand delivery). Accordingly, District’s motion for reconsideration of the April 16, 2014 Order is granted.
District seeks an order “reversing” the April 16, 2014 Order. In practicality, however, District has not offered any new law or different facts that justify vacating the April 16, 2014 Order in its entirety. District argues that it has 1) a right to participate in a resolution session and 2) a right to a speedy hearing.
Regarding the resolution session, the April 8, 2014 Order reset the timelines in this case to enable the parties to participate in a resolution session. The April 16, 2014 Order setting hearing timelines effectively terminated District’s right to a resolution session.
District has established good cause for vacating that portion of the April 16, 2014 Order on the ground that it did not receive Mother’s requests filed with OAH and could not respond in substance. Accordingly, District’s request to vacate the order setting the hearing timelines effective April 16, 2014 is granted. Neither party has offered any credible reason why they cannot meet and confer in a reasonable manner and set a date for a resolution session that is mutually convenient, without the necessity of continuing to file requests for relief from OAH. Given the history of this case until now, the April 16, 2014 Order provides the parties ample time to hold a resolution session and later, mediation, if desired, to try to resolve the case before the hearing.
Regarding the continuance of hearing dates, the April 16, 2014 Order continued this case, based on good cause established by Mother in both her first and second requests for continuance, setting the hearing on August 5, 2014, which was the first available date for OAH at the time the Order was issued. District offered no credible reason for vacating that order. Accordingly, District’s request to vacate the April 16, 2014 Order granting a continuance is denied and the hearing dates are confirmed.
ORDER
1. District’s motion for reconsideration is granted as to the portion of the April
16, 2104 Order that stated “The due process hearing timelines shall begin as of the date of this order pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §300.510(b)(5),” and that language is stricken. The parties have 30 days from April 8, 2014 to complete a resolution session.
2. District’s motion for reconsideration of the continuance granted in the April
14, 2014 Order is granted. However, upon reconsideration, District’s request to vacate the order granting a continuance is denied, and the April 16, 2014 Order granting a continuance is affirmed.
3. All hearing dates set in the April 16, 2014 Order apply and are confirmed.
DATE: April 23, 2014 /s/
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings