California OAH special education order · September 17, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015080259 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of stay put because it offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and no sworn declaration showing an implemented IEP.
This case went to decision
Student v. Winters Joint Unified School District et al.: Winters and Davis Joint Unified prevail on all claims; missing 2014 IEP goals were harmless procedural error. (2015)
Summary
On September 9, 2015, OAH denied Student's request for a stay put (pendency) placement. A week later, Parent asked OAH on Student's behalf to reconsider, and neither district filed an opposition. OAH denied reconsideration because the request raised no new or different facts, circumstances, or law. It also had no sworn declaration showing an implemented IEP that could serve as the basis for stay put.
Why it matters
A reconsideration request must present new facts, circumstances, or law. A stay put request needs sworn evidence identifying the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, and simply asking again will fail even when the district does not oppose.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015080259 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
DAVIS JOINT UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND WINTERS JOINT
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On September 9, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying Student’s request for pendency placement, also known as “stay put.” On September 16, 2015, Parent filed a request for reconsideration on behalf of Student. As of this date, neither school district has filed an opposition to this request.
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, and has provided no factual basis for granting a stay put placement.
The request is not accompanied by a sworn declaration on behalf of Student to allege the existence of an implemented individualized education program on which to base a determination of stay put.
Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 17, 2015
/ S/
JUDITH PASEWARK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings