California OAH special education order · July 17, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015070319 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider an order finding most complaint issues insufficient because Student only repeated arguments already made in an earlier opposition and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
This case went to decision
Student v. Fresno Unified School District: Fresno Unified prevails on all claims by a high schooler with a learning disability; one procedural violation found harmless. (2015)
Summary
On July 13, 2015, OAH found eight of ten issues in Student's complaint insufficient and gave Student 14 days to amend. Student then filed a letter and opposition to Fresno's Notice of Insufficiency, which OAH treated as a request for reconsideration. OAH denied it because Student's July 10, 2015 opposition had already made the same arguments. Student therefore showed no new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires new facts, circumstances, or law, so repeating arguments OAH has already considered will not work. After an insufficiency ruling, filing an amended complaint within the deadline is usually the more effective response.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015070319 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On July 13, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order finding that eight of ten issues in Student’s complaint were insufficient and giving Student 14 days to file an amended complaint. On July 15, 2015, Student filed a letter and opposition to Fresno’s Notice of Insufficiency, which is a request for reconsideration on behalf of the July 13, 2015 order.
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
On July 8, 2015, Fresno filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Issues One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, and 10 of Student’s complaint.
On July 10, 2015, Student filed an opposition to Fresno’s motion to dismiss and strike, which included an opposition to the NOI. In the July 10, 2015 opposition, Student made the same arguments as he did in the July 15, 2015 letter and opposition to the NOI.
Therefore, Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration.
Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 17, 2015
/ S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings