California OAH special education order · November 21, 2016
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2016100772 · ALJ Margaret Broussard
OAH denied Student's motion to reconsider an order dismissing several issues under a settlement agreement, finding the motion offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only new arguments about the agreement.
This case went to decision
Student v. Elk Grove Unified School District: Elk Grove Unified owed no special education services for 2016-2017 because Parent did not comply with an assessment order. (2016)
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider an earlier order by ALJ Clifford Woosley that dismissed several issues and bifurcated the hearing to decide whether the remaining issues should also be dismissed. Elk Grove Unified School District opposed. Presiding ALJ Margaret Broussard denied the motion because it only made new arguments about how to read the settlement agreement. Some new facts appeared in attached declarations, but they were not used in the motion and would not change the result. No explanation was given for leaving them out of the original opposition. The order also reminded Student's attorney that motions must be personally signed by the attorney of record, not by a paralegal with a "/s" placeholder.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law plus an explanation for not raising them earlier; re-arguing the same settlement terms will not work. Attorneys must personally sign every pleading filed with OAH.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Clifford Woosley, Administrative Law Judge (issued original order)
- James Peters III, Paralegal for Student's attorney
- Nicole Hodge Amey, Student's attorney
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. 2016100772 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On November 17, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Clifford Woosley issued an order dismissing several issues in this matter and bifurcating the hearing to allow for evidence to be received that will determine whether the remaining issues should be dismissed. On November 21, 2016, Student filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. On the same date, Elk Gove Unified School District filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration1.
Student’s motion for reconsideration is only signed by James Peters III, a paralegal working for Nicole Hodge Amey, the attorney of record for Student in this matter. Where Ms. Amey is supposed to sign the motion there is a “/s.”2 There are declarations from Mr.
Peters and Parent attached to the motion. The motion claims that there are new “facts and conclusions” as well as declarations in support of the motion for reconsideration.
The motion does not contain any new facts. The motion highlights sections of the settlement agreement, all of which was considered as part of the initial order. Student simply attempts to make new arguments regarding his preferred interpretation of the settlement agreement. No new facts were argued in the motion or used to support these new arguments from Student. Although some new facts appear for the first time in the attached declarations, these facts are not used to support any argument in the motion, and, even if they were, do not support a reconsideration of original order. Further, none of these “new” facts occurred after the filing of the initial opposition to the motion to dismiss and no explanation was given to support Ms. Amey’s failure to include these facts in her initial opposition. There was no declaration from Ms. Amey attached to the motion for reconsideration.
ALJ Woosley is on leave and not available to decide the motion for reconsideration prior to the commencement of the hearing on November 22, 2016.
Ms. Hodge Amey is reminded that OAH requires motions to be signed by the attorney of record and that there is no provision which allows signature by “/s” . In the future, Ms. Amey should sign all pleadings she submits to OAH.
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. Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is Denied.
ORDER
Motion for Reconsideration is Denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 21, 2016
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings