California OAH special education order · April 29, 2014
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Julian Union School District's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2014040274 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH agreed Julian's notice of insufficiency was timely because Student mailed the complaint to the district, but left unchanged its earlier finding that Student's complaint was sufficient.
Summary
OAH had found Student's complaint sufficient. Julian asked OAH to reconsider, showing that it was served by mail and did not receive the complaint until April 8, 2014, even though Student faxed it to OAH on April 2. Student confirmed the two different service methods, so OAH agreed that Julian's April 22 notice of insufficiency was filed on time. Julian offered no new facts against the finding that the complaint was sufficiently pled, so that ruling and all other directives in the original order stayed the same.
Why it matters
The 15-day deadline for a district to challenge a complaint's sufficiency runs from when the district receives the complaint, so serving the district by mail can push that deadline later than the OAH filing date. Winning on timeliness does not help a district unless it also shows the complaint is actually deficient.
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. 2014040274
v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JULIAN UNION
JULIAN UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT. SCHOOL DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
On April 24, 2014, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an order finding that Student’s complaint was sufficient (Order). On April 28, 2014, the Julian Union School District (Julian) filed a request for reconsideration. 1 On April 29, 2014, Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a response to the request.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) 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
Julian alleges new facts in support of its request reconsideration as follows: Although OAH received Student’s complaint on April 2, 2014, Julian complains that it did not receive Student’s complaint until April 8, 2014. Julian points out that the basis of this discrepancy was due to Student fax-serving her complaint to OAH, and serving its complaint upon Julian via mail. It Student’s response, she confirms the foregoing different methods of service.
Therefore, Julian correctly asserts that its Notice of Insufficiency, which was dated, filed with OAH, and served on April 22, 2014, was filed within the statutorily required timeline.
Julian’s request for reconsideration was entitled Notice of Timely Filing Notice of Insufficiency.
Julian does not allege new facts or circumstances in its request for reconsideration, or seek reconsideration, regarding the ALJ’s determination that Student’s complaint was sufficiently plead, or for any other parts of the Order.
Accordingly, Julian’s request for reconsideration is granted in part and denied in part.
Each directive contained in the Order shall remain unchanged.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 29, 2014
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings