California OAH special education order · March 7, 2016
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015090789 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider dismissing Humboldt-Del Norte SELPA as a party because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only argued the ALJ ignored an authority already cited.
This case went to decision
Student v. Contra Costa County Probation Department: Contra Costa County Probation must fund 17 hours of tutoring for blocking Juvenile Hall instruction; most other claims denied. (2014)
Summary
OAH had granted Humboldt SELPA's motion to dismiss it as a party, and Student timely asked for reconsideration. Humboldt SELPA opposed the request. Student argued the ALJ had ignored Education Code section 56530 and, for the first time, cited a prior OAH case (No. 2013080462) in which OAH found it had jurisdiction over a public entity. OAH denied reconsideration because Student showed no new facts, circumstances, or law, did not explain why the prior OAH case was not raised earlier, and that case is not binding precedent.
Why it matters
Reconsideration at OAH requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, plus an explanation for not raising them earlier. Repeating arguments or citing non-binding OAH decisions late will not succeed, so families should put their full argument and supporting authority in the original opposition.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Ed. Code, § 56530
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. 2015090789 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
LOLETA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On February 26, 2016, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting Humboldt-Del Norte Special Education Local Plan Area’s (Humboldt SELPA)
motion to dismiss it as a party. On March 2, 2016, Student timely filed a motion for reconsideration. Humboldt SELPA filed on opposition to the motion for reconsideration on March 3, 2016. For the reasons discussed below, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
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 his request reconsideration. Instead, Student’s motion cites as its basis an assertion that the undersigned ALJ “completely ignored” Education Code section 56530, an authority Student cited in his opposition to the motion to dismiss. Student also refers for the first time to OAH case number 2013080462 in support of his argument that OAH has found it has jurisdiction over a public entity under other factual circumstances. However, Student failed to explain why he did not include reference to that matter, which is not precedent OAH is required to follow, in his opposition to the original motion.
Student’s motion for reconsideration offered no new or different facts, circumstances or law justifying reconsideration. Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 7, 2016
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings