California OAH special education order · November 17, 2014

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2014110093 · ALJ Bob N. Varma

OAH denied Student's request for reconsideration because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and did not actually challenge the order granting the peremptory challenge against ALJ Marson.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

OAH had granted Student's peremptory challenge to ALJ Charles Marson. That same day, Student's advocate asked for reconsideration of the peremptory challenge order. The Presiding ALJ denied the request because Student raised no new facts, circumstances, or law. Student also did not want that order vacated; Student really wanted a different order issued by ALJ Marson vacated.

Why it matters

A reconsideration request has to target the specific order a party wants changed and must show new facts, circumstances, or law. Using a reconsideration request aimed at one order to attack a different ruling will fail.

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

Charles Marson, Administrative Law Judge (subject of peremptory challenge)
Robert Closson, Advocate for Student
Bob N. Varma, Presiding Administrative Law Judge

Topics

reconsideration peremptory challenge new facts requirement procedure advocate

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. 2014110093 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

SAN RAMON VALLEY UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On November 14, 2014, the undersigned Presiding Administrative Law Judge granted Student’s peremptory challenge as to ALJ Charles Marson. On November 14, 2014, Robert Closson, advocate for Student, filed a request for reconsideration of the order on the peremptory challenge.

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 does not want the order to be vacated, but rather seeks a separate order by ALJ Marson be vacated. Since there is no challenge to the order on Student’s peremptory challenge of ALJ Marson, Student request for reconsideration is denied.