California OAH special education order · February 2, 2015
Order Denying Second Request for Reconsideration of December 10, 2014 Sanctions Order
OAH Case No. 2014100290 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied Student's attorney's second request to reconsider a cost sanctions order against her because she offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only an embellished version of facts she already knew.
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
On December 10, 2014, OAH imposed cost sanctions against Student's counsel, Nicole Hodge Amey. OAH denied her first motion for reconsideration in January. She then filed a second request, supported by her own declaration, arguing that Mother had suspected the District did not accurately record Student's suspension days. District did not respond. OAH denied the request because it raised no new facts, circumstances, or law, and Mother's unsupported suspicions were not enough, especially since Mother could be presumed to know which days her own child attended school.
Why it matters
Repeated reconsideration requests that restate facts known when the complaint was filed will not undo a sanctions order. Attorneys should check the factual basis of claims, such as suspension dates, before filing.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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 SECOND
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION OF DECEMBER 10, 2014 SANCTIONS
SCHOOL DISTRICT. ORDER
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, 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 (District) filed an opposition on January 13, 2015. The undersigned ALJ denied the motion in an order issued on January 14, 2014. Ms. Amey filed a second request for reconsideration of the sanctions order, in the form of her declaration under penalty of perjury, on January 21, 2015. OAH did not receive a response from District. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is denied.
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
Here, Ms. Amey has offered no new facts, circumstances or law justifying reconsideration after the first order denying reconsideration was issued. This motion, like the previous motion for reconsideration, merely embellishes the facts that were known or should have been known to Ms. Amey when she filed the original complaint on October 6, 2014, and when she opposed the original sanctions motion. Although Ms. Amey now contends that Student’s mother suspected that District did not accurately record the number of days of actual suspension prior to October 6, 2014, Ms. Amey has offered no credible evidence that Mother’s suspicions are true or should not have been discoverable by Ms.
Amey. This is particularly true when at all times, Student’s Mother can be presumed to have known the dates her own child attended school. Accordingly, Mother’s suspicions are not a sufficient basis to grant reconsideration.
The second motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 2, 2015
/ S/
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings