California OAH special education order · December 2, 2014

Order Denying Request for Continuance; Denying Request for Reconsideration; Denying Request for Oral Argument; and, Denying Generic Opposition to Future Motions

OAH Case No. 2014071052 · ALJ Bob N. Varma

OAH denied Parent's one-page requests for a continuance, more time to find an attorney, reconsideration of the stay put order, and oral argument because they gave no supporting facts.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

Parent, acting as Student's authorized representative, filed a single page asking for several things: a continuance, extra time to find an attorney or advocate, reconsideration of the stay put order, and oral argument. The filing also opposed all motions Lincoln had filed, and Lincoln opposed Parent's requests. OAH denied every request. The filing contained only two sentences about fair-hearing rights and gave no facts showing good cause for a continuance and no new facts or law to support reconsideration. OAH also found the blanket opposition to all of Lincoln's motions too vague to consider, and said Student must file a specific opposition to each specific motion.

Why it matters

A parent representing a student must back each request with specific facts. Good cause is needed for a continuance, and new facts or law are needed for reconsideration. Each district motion must be opposed separately; general statements about rights or a blanket opposition will be denied.

Key authority cited

34 C.F.R. § 300.515
Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
Gov. Code, § 11521
Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192

Topics

continuance reconsideration stay put self-represented parent oral argument good cause

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:

STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2014071052 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE; DENYING

LINCOLN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION;

DENYING REQUEST FOR ORAL

ARGUMENT; AND, DENYING

GENERIC OPPOSITION TO FUTURE

MOTIONS

On November 21, 2014, Parent, as authorized representative of Student, filed a single page document entitled as a motion for continuance; motion for extra time to fine an attorney or advocate, which is in essence a request to continue; motion for reconsideration of stay put order; motion for oral argument on all motions; and an opposition to all motions filed by Lincoln Unified School District. On November 25, 2014, Lincoln filed an opposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) The Office of Administrative Hearings considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays;

the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance; and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

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

The entirety of student’s factual assertions, legal authority and argument is contained in two sentences, “He/we have a right to a fair hearing, and to question witnesses. He/we have rights to safe guards and procedures [sic] rights.” The motion provides no facts that would constitute good cause for a continuance. Student provides no facts, let alone new facts to support the request for reconsideration. Student’s motions lack any facts from which one could reasonably extrapolate any factual or legal argument in support of any of the motions.

Finally, Student’s generic statement that he opposes all motions filed by Lincoln is so vague that it warrants no consideration. All of Student’s motions contained in the single page document filed with OAH on November 21, 2014 are denied. If Student wishes to oppose any motion filed by Lincoln in this case, Student must file a specific opposition to that specific motion.