California OAH special education order · August 5, 2016
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2016070867 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied District's second request for reconsideration because District offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and only repeated its earlier argument for "correction" of a statute-of-limitations dismissal order.
Summary
OAH had granted District's motion to dismiss Student's claims arising more than two years before the complaint was filed. District then asked for a "correction" of that order, which OAH treated as a reconsideration motion and denied. District filed another reconsideration motion that restated the same argument and pointed back to its original motion. OAH denied it because District showed no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and noted that District may object at hearing if Student raises any dismissed claims.
Why it matters
OAH will not reconsider a ruling just because a party repeats an argument it already made. A party seeking reconsideration must show new facts, circumstances, or law. Disputes over the scope of a statute-of-limitations dismissal can instead be raised by objecting at hearing.
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. 2016070867 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
OAK GROVE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On July 27, 2016, the Office of Administrative Hearings granted Oak Grove School District’s motion to dismiss claims alleged in Student’s due process hearing request that arose more than two years prior to the filing of the complaint. The ALJ found that the alleged claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations.
On July 29, 2016, District filed a request for “correction” of the July 27, 2016 order granting District’s motion. The request for “correction” was, essentially, a motion for reconsideration and was denied by OAH order dated August 1, 2016.
On August 4, 2016, District filed a motion for reconsideration of the August 1, 2016 order, which is essentially a restatement of the argument contained in District’s prior motion for “correction.”
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
District alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the motion for reconsideration of the August 1, 2016 order. In fact, District directs OAH to its original motion of July 27, 2016 as the basis for the instant motion. Accordingly, District’s request for reconsideration is denied.
If, or to the extent, Student asserts claims dismissed by the July 27, 2016 order, District may raise an appropriate objection at the time any dismissed claims are asserted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 5, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings