California OAH special education order · August 18, 2014

Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Clarifying Scheduling Order

OAH Case No. 2014060923 · ALJ Joy Redmon

OAH granted Santa Barbara's reconsideration request and vacated a duplicate order and scheduling order, because Student's amendment had already been granted at the August 4, 2014 prehearing conference.

Granted Reconsideration

Summary

Santa Barbara sent a letter asking OAH to clarify the hearing dates. Another ALJ had already granted Student's motion to amend and set hearing dates at an August 4, 2014 prehearing conference, but OAH later issued a second order granting the same amendment along with a new scheduling order. OAH treated the letter as a motion for reconsideration and found the August 15 order had been issued by mistake. It deemed the amended complaint filed as of the August 4 prehearing conference order, vacated the August 15 dates, and reinstated the August 5 schedule: mediation September 9, prehearing conference September 22, and hearing beginning September 30, 2014.

Why it matters

When OAH issues conflicting or duplicate orders, a party can send a short letter asking for clarification, and OAH may treat it as a reconsideration request. Watch for duplicate orders, because the amendment's filing date controls the timelines and hearing dates.

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11521
Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192

People named in the order

Gorsline, Administrative Law Judge who conducted the August 4, 2014 prehearing conference

Topics

reconsideration scheduling amended complaint duplicate order hearing dates

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. 2014060923 v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

SANTA BARBARA UNIFIED SCHOOL CLARIFYING SCHEDULING ORDER

DISTRICT.

On August 15, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting Student’s motion to amend complaint. Thereafter, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a new scheduling order. On August 18, 2014, Santa Barbara Unified School District (Santa Barbara) submitted a letter indicating that Administrative Law Judge Gorsline had previously granted Student’s motion to amend complaint and setting hearing dates during a prehearing conference conducted on August 4, 2014. Santa Barbara seeks clarification of the dates set in this matter. OAH construes Santa Barbara’s letter as a motion for reconsideration of the August 15, 2014, order.

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

The August 15, 2014, order granting Student’s motion to amend was issued inadvertently as a ruling granting Student’s motion to amend had already been ruled on during the PHC. Accordingly, Santa Barbara’s request for clarification of the hearing dates is granted.

ORDER

1. Student’s amended complaint is deemed filed as of the PCH order dated

August 4, 2014.

2. The dates set forth in the scheduling order dated August 15, 2014 are vacated.

3. The matter will proceed as set forth in the August 5, 2014, scheduling order as

follows:

Mediation: September 9, 2014, from 9:30AM to 4:30 PM Pre-Hearing Conference: September 22, 2014, at 3:00 PM Due Process Hearing: September 30, 2014, 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM and continuing day to day, Monday through Thursday, as needed at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.