California OAH special education order · May 8, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015040979 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider keeping the case on an expedited track, because no new facts or law were offered and the complaint's allegations, not the remedies sought, control expedited status.
Summary
OAH had denied the parties' joint motion to vacate the expedited hearing dates, and Student asked OAH to reconsider. OAH denied reconsideration because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. The complaint challenged a disciplinary change in placement and District's failure to hold a manifestation determination, which must be heard on an expedited basis. Student's argument that he sought no relief under the IDEA's discipline provisions did not matter, because the allegations, not the remedies requested, decide whether a case is expedited.
Why it matters
A complaint that alleges a disciplinary change of placement or a missed manifestation determination will be expedited even if the family does not want expedited relief. To avoid the expedited track, the family must withdraw those issues or amend the complaint to remove them.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a)
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. 2015040979
v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On May 4, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying the parties’ joint motion to vacate the expedited hearing dates set in this matter. On May 7, 2015, Student filed a request for reconsideration. As discussed below, reconsideration is denied.
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
Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration.
Student’s complaint alleged a disagreement with a decision by a District regarding a change in educational placement, based upon a violation of a code of student conduct, and a disagreement with District’s failure to hold a manifestation determination. As such, the allegations are subject to an expedited due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006).) So long as the complaint states a disagreement as to a change in placement and the failure to hold a manifestation determination, it is subject to an expedited timeframe.
Student argues that no relief is sought under the operative provisions of the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k).) However, the allegations, rather than the requested remedies, determine whether a case is expedited. If Student wishes to file a withdrawal of all expedited issues raised by the complaint, he may do so, or he may amend his complaint to remove all allegations that would fall under section 1415(k).
Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 08, 2015
/ S/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings