California OAH special education order · May 15, 2015

Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Denying Request to Unconsolidate

OAH Case No. 2015040885, 2015030258 · ALJ Joy Redmon

OAH reconsidered its consolidation order but kept the cases consolidated, finding that consolidation does not shift the burden of proof. Each party still bears the burden on the issues in its own complaint.

Ruling Reconsideration

This case went to decision

Student v. San Mateo-Foster City School District (consolidated): San Mateo-Foster City must release behavior assessor's notes and teacher forms; no IEE owed, and all other claims denied. (2015)

Summary

OAH granted San Mateo-Foster City's motion to consolidate its case with Student's case. Student's opposition arrived after the order issued, and OAH treated it as a request for reconsideration. Student argued that consolidation would unfairly shift the burden of proof from San Mateo-Foster City to Student. OAH agreed to reconsider but found the argument wrong: under Schaffer v. Weast, the party filing a complaint bears the burden of persuasion on its own issues, so consolidation changes nothing and the cases stay consolidated.

Why it matters

Families need not fear that joining their case with a district's case will shift the district's burden of proof onto them; each side still must prove the claims in its own complaint. A late opposition can still be heard as a reconsideration request, but it needs a sound legal basis to change the outcome.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii)

Topics

reconsideration consolidation burden of proof late opposition

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 Consolidated Matters of:

OAH Case No. 2015040885

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015030258

DISTRICT,

v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. REQUEST TO UNCONSOLIDATE

On May 13, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting San Mateo-Foster City’s request to consolidate OAH 2015040885 [Student’s Case] with OAH 2015030258 [San Mateo-Foster City’s Case]. On May 13, 2015, after that order had been issued, the Office of Administrative Hearings received an opposition to the motion from Student. That request is considered a request for reconsideration of the order granting consolidation of the aforementioned cases.

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

Student essentially argues that consolidation is not appropriate because consolidating the cases would unfairly shift the burden of proof from San Mateo-Foster City to Student in the due process hearing. This argument is considered a new legal basis upon which reconsideration is warranted. Student’s interpretation of the consolidations impact, however, is incorrect. At the hearing, the party filing the complaint has the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 56-62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) [standard of review for IDEA administrative hearing decision is preponderance of the evidence].) Therefore, San Mateo- Foster City bears the burden of proof as to the issues raised in its complaint and Student bears the burden of proof as to the issues raised in his complaint. Consolidating the cases does not impact or shift the burden of proof. The request to unconsolidate the matters is denied. The cases will remain consolidated.

ORDER

1. The motion for reconsideration is granted.

2. The request to unconsolidate OAH 2015040885 and OAH Case No. 2015030258

is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: May 15, 2015

/ S/

JOY REDMON

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings