California OAH special education order · April 7, 2015

Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Denying Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2014120167 · ALJ Rebecca Freie

OAH granted Oakland's reconsideration request but again denied its continuance, finding Oakland's attorneys created their own scheduling conflicts by agreeing to overlapping hearing dates in other cases.

Ruling Reconsideration

This case went to decision

Student v. Oakland Unified School District: Oakland Unified must fund three independent assessments and translate IEPs into Spanish after procedural violations denied FAPE. (2015)

Summary

An earlier prehearing conference order denied Oakland's request to continue the April 14, 2015 hearing. Oakland asked for reconsideration, mostly repeating its earlier arguments. It also claimed OAH had changed a prior "policy" of allowing continuances when attorneys had multiple hearings set. Out of caution, OAH reconsidered on that point but again denied the continuance. It found the conflicting cases were set after this hearing date, with Oakland's own attorneys agreeing to those dates, so the conflict was of counsel's own making.

Why it matters

A district cannot get a hearing delayed by pointing to conflicts its own lawyers created when they agreed to overlapping dates. Each continuance request is judged on its own facts, not on any claimed OAH "policy."

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11521
Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192

Topics

reconsideration continuance attorney scheduling conflict hearing dates good cause

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. 2014120167

v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING

OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

DISTRICT.

On April 3, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order after a prehearing conference, in which a motion for continuance of an April 14, 2015 start date for hearing in this matter filed by Oakland Unified School District (Oakland) was denied. On April 6, 2015, Oakland filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the continuance.

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

In its request for reconsideration, Oakland has reiterated the same contentions it raised in its original request of April 1, 2015, and because they do not constitute new law or facts, they are not discussed herein. Oakland’s only contention that could be considered a new fact or law is the assertion that OAH has changed a prior “policy” of allowing continuances when attorneys were set for multiple hearings. While the issue of multiple hearings was discussed and addressed in the prior order, out of an abundance of caution, OAH will grant reconsideration on these grounds.

Each request for continuance is examined on its own merits. As was set out in the April 3, 2015 order, the conflicting cases for Oakland were set following the setting of dates in this matter. In all three matters Oakland’s attorneys consented to the dates. The alleged unavailability of counsel due to multiple hearings was not created by any “policy” of OAH, but by Oakland’s own counsel. Oakland’s attorneys knowingly created their own conflicts and now seek a continuance from OAH. The contentions are not persuasive and the request for continuance is denied.