California OAH special education order · December 11, 2015
Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration and Granting Student's Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015080292 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider how the prehearing conference order framed the issues because it showed no new facts or law, but granted Student's timely motion to amend the complaint.
Summary
After the December 7, 2015 prehearing conference order framed Student's issues, Student asked OAH the same day to reconsider that framing, or in the alternative to allow an amended complaint. Student filed a second motion to amend, with the amended complaint, on December 10, 2015, and District opposed it as untimely. OAH denied reconsideration because Student offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law. OAH granted leave to amend because the request was first made on December 7, which was timely. The amended complaint was deemed filed on the date of the order, and all timelines were reset.
Why it matters
If a family disagrees with how OAH framed the issues, reconsideration will fail without new facts or law, but a timely motion to amend the complaint can still get the claims restated. Amending, however, restarts all hearing timelines.
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(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
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. 2015080292 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
YUCAIPA-CALIMESA JOINT UNIFIED AND GRANTING STUDENT’S
SCHOOL DISTRICT. MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
On August 3, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District. On December 4, 2015, the prehearing conference was held. On December 7, 2015, the Order following prehearing conference was issued.
On December 7, 2015, Student filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the manner in which the December 7, 2015 Order had framed Student’s issues. Student’s December 7, 2015 motion sought reconsideration, or in the alternative, permission to amend the complaint. On December 10, 2015, Student filed a second motion to amend the complaint. District filed an opposition on December 11, 2015.
APPLICABLE LAW
Reconsideration OAH 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.)
Amendment An amended complaint may be filed when either (a) the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or (b) the hearing officer grants permission, provided the hearing officer may grant such permission at any time more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing.
(20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
DISCUSSION AND ORDER
Student’s motion for reconsideration states no new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
Student’s December 7, 2015 motion for leave to amend is timely and is granted.
Student’s amended complaint 1 shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 11, 2015
/ S/
TED MANN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings The Amended Complaint was filed on December 10, 2015 with Student’s second motion to amend. District’s argument that the motion to amend is untimely is rejected, as the motion was initially made on December 7, 2015.