California OAH special education order · October 29, 2015
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration Regarding Stay-Put
OAH Case No. 2015080957 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Long Beach's request to reconsider a stay-put order keeping Student at Vista Del Mar. The district offered no new facts and filed two months late without explanation.
Summary
OAH had granted Student's stay-put request at Vista Del Mar, a nonpublic school named in Student's last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Two months later, Long Beach asked OAH to reconsider. The district pointed to its termination of its master contract with Vista and to Vista's continued conditional certification. OAH denied the request because both facts had already been considered in the original order, and because the motion was untimely with no explanation for the delay. A passing mention of sanctions in Student's opposition was not treated as a sanctions request, because it was not in the caption and gave no details of time or expense.
Why it matters
A district cannot end a nonpublic school stay-put placement just by canceling its master contract with the school or pointing to the school's conditional certification. Parents seeking sanctions must make a formal request and document the attorney time and expense involved.
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. 2015080957 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION REGARDING
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL STAY-PUT
DISTRICT.
On August 27, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting Student’s request for stay-put at Vista Del Mar, a non-public school specifically identified in Student’s last agreed upon and implemented individualized education program as his placement. On October 28, 2015, Long Beach filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 27, 2015, order. On October 29, 2015, Student filed an opposition to the motion arguing that it was untimely and provided no new facts or law. 1
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
Long Beach asserts that the fact that it terminated its master contract with Vista constitutes a new fact justifying reconsideration. Long Beach also appears to seek reconsideration based upon Vista’s continued conditional status. Both of these facts were considered in the prior ruling. That order specifically states, “Long Beach provided no authority permitting the stay put placement to change when the State certification is conditional or when the district no longer maintains a master contract with a non-public Student’s opposition includes a passing reference to sanctions. No formal request for sanctions or cost shifting was included in the caption or motion and no details were provided regarding the time and expense Student’s counsel expended in responding to the motion. Therefore, the undersigned ALJ did not consider it a request.
school.” Accordingly, Long Beach provided no basis warranting reconsideration at this time.
As noted in the original order, should Vista become non-certified at some point in the future, Long Beach is not precluded from filing for reconsideration at that time.
Additionally, the motion for reconsideration is untimely as it was filed two months after the original Order was issued with no explanation for the delay.
In light of the forgoing, Long Beach’s request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 29, 2015
/ S/
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings