California OAH special education order · July 31, 2015

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2015060923 · ALJ Margaret Broussard

OAH denied Student's request to reconsider a continuance granted to the districts because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and only disagreed with the ALJ's analysis.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

At the July 24, 2015 prehearing conference, OAH granted the district's and county office's opposed request to continue the hearing. Student asked OAH to reconsider. Student argued the motion had to be served on him in writing, that witness unavailability was not good cause, and that the respondents did not follow the California Rules of Court. OAH denied reconsideration because the written motion was heard orally at the prehearing conference where Student had a chance to respond, the Rules of Court do not apply to special education due process hearings, and Student offered no new facts but only disagreed with the ruling.

Why it matters

A reconsideration request needs new or different facts, circumstances, or law, not just disagreement with the ALJ's reasoning. The California Rules of Court do not govern OAH special education hearings.

Key authority cited

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

Topics

reconsideration continuance good cause witness unavailability prehearing conference

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. 2015060923 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION

SOQUEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DISTRICT AND SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

OFFICE OF EDUCATION.

On July 24, 2015, during the prehearing conference in this matter, the undersigned Presiding Administrative Law Judge granted Soquel Elementary School District’s and Santa Cruz County Office of Education’s request for continuance. That request was opposed by Student. After the prehearing conference, on July 24, 2015, Student filed a motion to reconsider the order granting continuance. Student generally claims that the motion was required to be served on him in writing, that the unavailability of the witnesses upon which the order was granted did not constitute good cause in his opinion, and that the respondents did not follow the California Rules of Court when they requested the continuance.

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 provides no new or different facts, circumstances or law, which justify reconsideration. Although the respondents had filed the motion to continue with OAH in writing, the motion was heard orally at the PHC and Student was given an opportunity to respond. The California Rules of Court, cited by Student, are not applicable to special education due process hearings.

Finally, Student alleged no new facts regarding the reasons underlying the continuances, and instead, seems to disagree with the undersigned’s analysis. None of this is a basis for reconsideration, and, as such, the motion is denied.