California OAH special education order · March 8, 2017
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017011151 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider a continuance order because pointing out minor factual errors is not new facts or law, but invited a joint request for mutually agreed hearing dates.
Summary
Student had asked to continue the hearing to April 18-20, 2017, so the parties could mediate first. OAH granted a continuance but considered District's opposition, which said District was not available on those dates but was available in early May 2017. Student then asked OAH to reconsider. OAH denied reconsideration because Student pointed out only insignificant factual inaccuracies and offered no new relevant facts or law. OAH said it was inclined to grant a second continuance if counsel met and conferred and filed a joint request with hearing dates within 90 days of the original hearing date, and that it would pick the dates itself if the parties could not agree.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires new or different facts, circumstances, or law, so pointing out small errors in an order will not succeed. When the real dispute is over scheduling, it is usually more productive to meet and confer with the other side and file a joint request for agreed dates.
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. 2017011151 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On March 7, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting a request for continuance of all dates in this matter. The initial hearing date was March 23,
2017. On March 8, 2017, Student’s attorney filed a motion for reconsideration on behalf of
Student. Because the motion is denied, no response from District is necessary.
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 filed a request for continuance on March 1, 2017, requesting dates for hearing on April 18-20, 2017, because Student’s counsel was not available on the date set for mediation, and Student wanted to mediate before hearing. OAH granted the motion, taking into consideration District’s opposition, which stated District was not available for hearing on the dates proposed by Student’s counsel, but was available two weeks later during the first week of May 2017.
Although Student’s motion for reconsideration points out insignificant factual inaccuracies in the Order, and in District’s opposition, Student has offered no new relevant facts or law justifying reconsideration. Accordingly, reconsideration is denied.
OAH is inclined to grant a second continuance to mutually agreed-upon dates providing counsel for both parties meet and confer and file a joint request for continuance that includes hearing dates within 90 days of the initial hearing date. If the parties cannot agree on dates, each party shall provide OAH with dates within 90 days of the original hearing date and OAH will select the dates for the parties.
All dates are confirmed, unless otherwise ordered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 8, 2017
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings