California OAH special education order · September 23, 2015

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2015010421 · ALJ Margaret Broussard

OAH denied Sacramento City's motion to reconsider a continuance order because the conflicting hearing in Student's sibling's case had since been moved, eliminating the scheduling conflict.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

OAH had continued the hearing to begin October 6, 2015. Sacramento City asked OAH to reconsider because the new dates conflicted with a hearing for the same parties in a case involving Student's sibling. Student did not respond. Because the sibling's case had since been continued to October 27, 2015, there was no longer a conflict, so OAH denied reconsideration and kept all dates in place.

Why it matters

Reconsideration requires new or different facts, and a request can become moot when the underlying problem is fixed by another order. Families with siblings in separate cases should watch both calendars for conflicts.

Key authority cited

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

Topics

reconsideration scheduling conflict continuance sibling case moot

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. 2015010421 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On September 14, 2015, the undersigned Presiding Administrative Law Judge issued an order continuing the hearing in this matter, setting it to begin on October 6, 2015. On September 16, 2015, Sacramento City Unified School District filed a motion for reconsideration because the new hearing dates in this matter conflict with hearing dates the on calendar for the same parties in a matter involving Student’s sibling. No response from Student was received to the motion for reconsideration. On September 23, 2015, an order was issued continuing the matter involving Student’s sibling until October 27, 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

As the matter involving Student’s sibling was continued, there is no longer a conflict as alleged in Sacramento City’s motion for reconsideration. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates in this matter remain as scheduled.