California OAH special education order · June 29, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015020856 · ALJ Bob N. Varma
OAH denied Sequoia's request to reconsider the denial of its peremptory challenge, finding no new facts or law and that the ALJ had already held a prehearing conference that set hearing dates.
This case went to decision
Student v. Sequoia Union High School District: Sequoia Union High School District must reimburse $76,438.62, two-thirds of Alpine Academy costs; its 2014-2015 offer was upheld. (2015)
Summary
Sequoia asked OAH to reconsider an order denying as untimely its peremptory challenge of ALJ Theresa Ravandi. Sequoia argued the April 17, 2015 prehearing conference only granted a continuance and decided nothing substantive. OAH denied the request because these facts were already known to Sequoia when it filed the challenge and it cited no new law. OAH added that the ALJ properly called the prehearing conference on the record and ruled on a substantive issue, the hearing dates.
Why it matters
A party loses its peremptory challenge once the assigned ALJ holds a prehearing conference, even one that only rules on a continuance. Reconsideration requires new facts or law, not reargument of points already known.
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
- Theresa Ravandi, Administrative Law Judge (subject of peremptory challenge)
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. 2015020856 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On June 29, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying Sequoia Union High School District’s peremptory challenge of Administrative Law Judge Theresa Ravandi on the grounds that the request was untimely, as ALJ Ravandi had previously conducted a prehearing conference in the matter on April 17, 2015. On June 29, 2015, Sequoia filed a request to reconsider.
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, Sequoia alleges that reconsideration is warranted because ALJ Ravandi did not “reach the merits of any substantive issue” during the PHC of April 17, 2015, and that the PHC consisted “solely” of the granting of a request to continue. These are not new facts or circumstances, as these facts were known to Sequoia when it filed its peremptory challenge;
nor is there any new law cited in support of the request for reconsideration.
Regardless of Sequoia’s failure to meet the threshold for a reconsideration, the record shows that the ALJ appropriately called the PHC on the record, and the parties were on notice the PHC had begun. It was in the confirming of the dates, consistent with matters that are discussed at a PHC, that the request to continue was raised. The request to continue is a motion, a proper subject of a PHC, and was ruled upon during the PHC. Contrary to Sequoia’s assertion, ALJ Ravandi conducted a PHC on April 17, 2015, and ruled upon a substantive issue – dates for the hearing. Accordingly, the request to reconsider is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 29, 2015
/ S/
BOB N. VARMA
Division Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings