California OAH special education order · February 26, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015010203 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Student's second request for reconsideration and further continuance because the attorney's travel difficulties had already been considered when OAH granted a one-day continuance.
Summary
Student's attorney, Mr. Leemhuis, filed a second motion for reconsideration and continuance. He said he could not travel from a southern California court appearance in time to start the northern California hearing the next day. Elk Grove opposed. The ALJ denied the request because those travel logistics had already been considered when she granted a one-day continuance, so Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and the hearing was ordered to start February 27, 2015.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires new or different facts or law. Repeating an argument OAH already weighed, such as attorney travel conflicts, will not win a further delay, so scheduling conflicts should be fully raised the first time.
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
- Mr. Leemhuis, 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:
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015010203
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
v. RECONSIDERATION
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On February 24, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying Student’s motion to continue the due process hearing scheduled to begin on February 26, 2015. On February 25, 2015, Student filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling. On February 25, 2015, over Elk Grove Unified School District’s objection, this ALJ granted reconsideration of the order denying Student’s motion to continue, granted a one-day continuance, and ordered the due process hearing to commence on Friday, February 27,
2015. On February 26, 2015, Student filed another motion for reconsideration and motion to
continue the February 27, 2015, hearing date. The basis for the request for reconsideration was that Mr. Leemhuis, Student’s attorney of record, is not able to travel from southern California after his previously scheduled court appearance to northern California to start a hearing the following day. Elk Grove filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration and requests that the matter proceed tomorrow as scheduled.
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
The logistics and challenges associated with traveling to northern California to start a due process hearing one day after appearing in southern California in another matter were considered as part of the underlying ruling granting the one-day continuance. Accordingly, Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the second request for reconsideration.
ORDER
1. The second request for reconsideration is denied.
2. This matter will commence tomorrow, February 27, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 26, 2015
/S/
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings