California OAH special education order · February 17, 2015

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2014100057 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH denied Student's request to reconsider dismissal and set aside a signed settlement, finding no new facts or law and that OAH lacks authority to set aside or enforce settlement agreements.

Denied Reopening cases and vacating settlements

Summary

Parent signed a settlement agreement in October 2014, and District's board approved it in November 2014. Parent later said she no longer agreed with it. OAH dismissed the case in January 2015 because the parties had a binding settlement, and Student then asked OAH to reconsider, set the settlement aside, and let the case go to hearing. OAH denied the request because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and because OAH has no legal authority to set aside or enforce a settlement agreement; enforcement belongs with the Superintendent of Public Instruction through a compliance complaint, or with a court.

Why it matters

Once a parent signs a settlement and the district's board approves it, changing your mind generally will not reopen the case at OAH. Parents should review settlement terms carefully before signing, and disputes about a settlement must go to the California Department of Education or to court.

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11521
Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
Porter v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 307 F.3d 1064
Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)

People named in the order

Nancy Finch-Heuerman, District representative

Topics

reconsideration settlement agreement set aside settlement oah jurisdiction self-represented parent dismissal

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. 2014100057

v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On December 17, 2014, a telephonic status conference was held before Presiding Administrative Law Judge Peter Paul Castillo, Office of Administrative Hearings. Mother appeared on behalf of Student. Nancy Finch-Heuerman, representative for Westminster School District, appeared on behalf of District. A Spanish language interpreter was provided to Mother.

At the telephonic status conference, Mother stated that she no longer agrees with the settlement agreement that she signed, and which the District adopted, and therefore she would not be submitting a letter to dismiss this matter.

At the conclusion of the telephonic status conference, OAH issued an order that if District wished to have this matter dismissed because of the settlement agreement, it needed file a motion to dismiss by 5:00 p.m., on January 5, 2015. Student would have three days after receipt of the Spanish language translation of District’s motion to file a response with

OAH.

District filed its motion to dismiss on December 22, 2014. A Spanish translation was provided to Parent on December 29, 2014, and Student responded on January 9, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that dismissed Student’s complaint because the parties had entered into a binding settlement agreement that resolved this matter. On January 28, 2015, Student filed a request for reconsideration that sought again to set aside the settlement agreement and to let this matter proceed to hearing.

District 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.)

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration as Parent signed a Settlement Agreement on October 29, 2014, subject to approval by District’s board, which occurred on November 13, 2014. OAH lacks the legal authority to set aside a settlement agreement. Pursuant to Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, OAH does not have jurisdiction to enforce provisions of a final decision, which would include a settlement agreement. (See, Ed.

Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) A party’s remedy to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement is either to file a compliance complaint with the Superintendent of Public Instruction or institute a court action. (See, Porter v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District (9th Cir.

2000) 307 F.3d 1064.) Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.