California OAH special education order · March 21, 2017
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2016110441 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of her motion to amend, finding no new facts, circumstances, or law and that the 'new' issues only re-split the original claims.
This case went to decision
Student v. Capistrano Unified School District: Capistrano Unified must reimburse up to $41,600 in private school tuition for child find failures; June 2016 IEP upheld. (2017)
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its March 17, 2017 order denying her motion to amend her November 2016 complaint, and District opposed. OAH found that Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. The four 'new' issues were just a re-splitting of the original three issues about child find and FAPE for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years and the June 30, 2016 IEP. Student also did not explain why these issues were left out of the original complaint or why she waited to amend until the eve of the March 28, 2017 hearing.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, and recasting existing claims as new issues will not work. Families should raise all claims early, because late amendments about past school years are likely to be refused close to 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. 2016110441 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On March 17, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that denied Student’s March 15, 2017 motion to amend her November 2, 2016 complaint. On March 20, 2017, Student filed a request for reconsideration. On March 21, 2017, Capistrano Unified School District filed an opposition to the request.
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. Student focuses on that the amended complaint includes four new issues for hearing. However, a review of those four issues demonstrate the ‘new’ issues are a parsing of the three issues alleged in the November 2, 2016 complaint regarding District’s purported failure to comply with its Child Find Duties and make an offer of a free and appropriate public education during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, and whether District’s June 30, 2016 individualized educational program provided Student with a FAPE. Further, as Student’s ‘new’ issues all pertain to the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, Student fails to demonstrate why those ‘new’ issues were not included in the original complaint or the delay in amending in the November 2, 2016 complaint until the eve of hearing, which is scheduled to begin on March 28, 2017.
Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
DATE: March 21, 2017
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings