California OAH special education order · March 22, 2016
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2015110488, 2015110268 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider its refusal to set aside a mediated settlement, finding no new facts or law and that the request was filed more than ten days after the order.
Summary
Parents asked OAH to set aside a settlement agreement reached at mediation with Carlsbad Unified School District, claiming they signed it under duress. OAH denied that request on March 1, 2016. Student then asked OAH to reconsider on March 21, 2016, and District did not respond. OAH denied reconsideration because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law: the claimed confusion about a service provider could have been raised earlier. OAH also found the request untimely because it was not received within ten days after the order issued.
Why it matters
A request for reconsideration must present genuinely new facts or law, explain why they were not raised earlier, and be filed within ten days of the order. Families who want to challenge a mediated settlement should raise every ground in their first motion.
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015110488 v.
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015110268
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
v. RECONSIDERATION
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On February 22, 2016, Parents on behalf Student filed a request that the Office of Administrative Hearings set aside the settlement agreement reached in this consolidated matter entered between Parent and Carlsbad Unified School District, which occurred in mediation on January 28, 2016. Parents, who were represented by legal counsel at the mediation, who has subsequently withdrawn as counsel, contend that the settlement agreement was the product of duress. The settlement agreement is subject to approval by District’s board. District did not submit a response. On March 1, 2016, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge denied Student’s motion.
On March 21, 2016, Student filed a request for reconsideration. District did not submit a response.
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
Student alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration that would warrant setting aside the settlement agreement, as the purported confusion about a service provider is information that could have been provided sooner and by itself is not grounds for OAH to reconsider its prior ruling. Further, the request is not timely because it was not received within ten days after issuance of the order. Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Student’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
DATE: March 22, 2016
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings