California OAH special education order · June 9, 2017
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017031156 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Sacramento City's request to clarify the prehearing conference order, treating it as a reconsideration motion that offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and no sworn declaration.
Summary
Two days after the ALJ issued an order following the prehearing conference, Sacramento City filed a request for "clarification" of that order. Student did not file an opposition. OAH treated the request as a motion for reconsideration and denied it. The district alleged no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and did not include a sworn declaration from any district representative.
Why it matters
OAH may treat a request to "clarify" a prior order as a motion for reconsideration. A party asking OAH to change a ruling must show new facts, circumstances, or law, ideally supported by a sworn declaration, or the request will be denied even when no one opposes it.
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. 2017031156 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On June 5, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order following the Prehearing Conference in the above-captioned matter.. On June 7, 2017, Sacramento City filed a request for “clarification” on behalf of District. No opposition was received from Student as of the date of this order. This motion is being treated as a motion for reconsideration.
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
Sacramento City alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request for reconsideration. Nor is the request accompanied by a sworn declaration by any representative of Sacramento City. Accordingly, Sacramento City’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 9, 2017
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings