California OAH special education order · October 21, 2014
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2014090949 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied Student's request to bring the California Department of Education and the State Superintendent back into the case because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only a plan to hire counsel.
Summary
On October 7, 2014, OAH dismissed the California Department of Education and Superintendent Tom Torlakson from Student's case because the complaint stated no claim against them within OAH's jurisdiction. The next day, Student sent a letter asking to reopen all claims against them, which OAH treated as a motion for reconsideration. No one opposed it. OAH denied the request because Student gave no new facts, circumstances, or law, and said only that Student was trying to retain legal counsel.
Why it matters
To win reconsideration, a party must show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, not just a plan to hire an attorney. Parents who want to keep a state agency in a case should explain in the complaint how that agency is responsible for the student's special education.
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
- Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction (party)
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. 2014090949
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, TOM TORLAKSON, AND
HAWTHORNE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On October 7, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting a motion to dismiss filed by the California Department of Education and Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Instruction, finding that Student had failed to allege a claim against the moving parties within the jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative Hearings. On October 8, 2014, Student filed with OAH a letter requesting to reopen all claims averred in the complaint as to CDE and Superintendent Torlakson. In effect, Student is requesting the ALJ to reconsider the October 7, 2014 order which dismissed the CDE and Superintendent Torlakson as parties. Thus, the pleading is deemed a motion for reconsideration. No opposition has been received.
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 AND ORDER
Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request for reconsideration. In fact, Student’s only grounds cited is that he is seeking to retain legal counsel.
Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 21, 2014
/ S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings