California OAH special education order · January 14, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration of Sanctions Order
OAH Case No. 2014100290 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied Student's attorney's request to reconsider a cost sanctions order against her because she offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only expanded arguments she had already made.
This case went to decision
Student v. Panama-Buena Vista Union School District: Panama-Buena Vista Union must fund 35 hours of counseling and tutoring for a seven-week child find failure; other claims denied. (2015)
Summary
OAH had imposed cost sanctions against Student's counsel, Nicole Hodge Amey, on December 10, 2014. Ms. Amey moved for reconsideration with a supporting declaration, and Panama-Buena Vista Union School District opposed. The ALJ found the motion timely under the 30-day limit of Government Code section 11521. The ALJ denied it because Ms. Amey only embellished facts she knew or should have known when she filed the complaint, and repeated arguments that had already failed in her opposition to the sanctions motion.
Why it matters
A request to reconsider an OAH ruling must rest on genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, and the party may need to explain why that information was not offered earlier. Re-arguing the same points or adding detail to facts already known will not undo a sanctions order.
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
- Nicole Hodge Amey, Student's attorney
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. 2014100290
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SANCTIONS
PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION ORDER
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On December 10, 2014, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order imposing cost sanctions against Student’s counsel, Nicole Hodge Amey. On January 8, 2015, at 4:59 p.m., Ms. Amey filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 10, 2014 sanctions order, supported by her declaration under penalty of perjury. Panama-Buena Vista Union School District filed an opposition on January 13, 2015.
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
Government Code section 11521 provides that in the absence of a time limit set by an agency, the power to order reconsideration shall expire 30 days after the delivery or mailing of the decision. Absent a regulation setting a time limit for reconsideration of special education hearing orders, and giving Ms. Amey the broadest latitude by applying Government Code section 11521, Ms. Amey’s motion is timely.
However, Ms. Amey has offered no new facts, circumstances or law arising after the sanctions order was issued justifying reconsideration. Instead, she has embellished the facts that were known or should have been known to her when she filed the original complaint on October 6, 2014, and she expanded on the reasoning she unsuccessfully argued in her opposition to Panama’s motion for sanctions. That is not a sufficient basis to grant reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 14, 2015
/S/
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings