California OAH special education order · May 12, 2014

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2014040480 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH denied Charter School's request to reconsider its late notice of insufficiency because the 5:51 fax stamp was Greenwich Mean Time, meaning the complaint actually arrived at 9:51 a.m. Pacific time.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

Charter School asked OAH to reconsider an order finding its notice of insufficiency untimely. It argued that it received Student's complaint after business hours on April 7, 2014, so the 15-day deadline should run from April 8. OAH found that the fax time stamp of 17:51 was Greenwich Mean Time, which equals 9:51 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time. Charter School therefore received the complaint that morning, its notice was due April 22, and the April 23 filing was late. The request was denied.

Why it matters

The 15-day deadline to challenge a complaint's sufficiency is strict, and fax time stamps may be in a different time zone. Parties should confirm exactly when they received a document before relying on an after-hours receipt argument.

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11521
Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1006, subd. (h)

People named in the order

Germaine Nesbitt, Charter School Director (declarant)

Topics

reconsideration notice of insufficiency timeliness fax filing charter school

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. 2014040480 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

THE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND

ENTERPRISE CHARTER SCHOOL.

On April 7, 2014, Student, through his legal counsel, filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming the School of Arts and Enterprise Charter School (Charter School). On April 23, 2014, Charter School, through its legal counsel, filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint. On May 6, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order finding that Charter School’s NOI was not timely filed. On May 9, 2014, Charter School filed a request for reconsideration, asserting that it received the complaint after 5:00 p.m. on April 7, 2014, and thus it received Student’s complaint on April 8, 2014, which would make its NOI timely filed within 15 days of it receiving Student’s complaint. 2 Student did not submit a response.

APPLICABLE LAW

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.)

1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).

2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1); and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1006, subd. (h).

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Charter School alleges in its request for reconsideration and attached declaration of Germaine Nesbitt, Charter School Director, that Charter School received Student’s complaint at 5:51 p.m. on April 7, 2014, which is after business hours. However, Charter School fails to note that the fax time stamp on the complaint is 17:51 Greenwich Mean Time, which is also time stamped on the complaint that OAH received, which is 9:51 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time. Therefore, OAH and Charter School both received Student’s complaint around the same time on the morning of April 7, 2014, and thus Charter School’s NOI was not timely filed, as it was due on April 22, 2014. Accordingly, Charter School’s request for reconsideration is denied.