California OAH special education order · June 28, 2017
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017050289 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH denied Student's reconsideration of the dismissal because the late documents confirmed both parents signed the August 2016 settlement and showed no later agreement replacing it.
Summary
OAH dismissed Student's case on District's motion. Later the same day, Student filed more documents opposing the dismissal, and the ALJ treated them as a motion for reconsideration. District opposed. OAH denied reconsideration because the documents showed only post-settlement discussions about the terms, confirmed both parents signed the agreement on August 2, 2016, and showed no later agreement that replaced it.
Why it matters
Once parents sign a settlement agreement, later back-and-forth about its terms does not undo it unless a new agreement actually replaces it. Families should also file all opposition evidence on time, because late papers are judged under the stricter reconsideration standard.
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. 2017050289 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On June 19, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting District’s motion to dismiss this case. Later on June 19, 2017, Student filed additional documents in support of his opposition to District’s motion to dismiss that were not filed in time for the ALJ to consider the documents prior to issuing her order dismissing the case.
The ALJ is therefore treating Student’s additional documents as a motion for reconsideration.
District filed an opposition to Student’s motion to dismiss on June 21, 2017.
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 has failed to show any new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration of the order granting District’s motion to dismiss. Student asserts that his additional documentation supports his contention that the parties did not enter into a valid settlement agreement on or about August 2, 2016. Student’s documents show that the parties engaged in post-settlement discussion regarding the terms of their agreement. However, the documents submitted by Student confirm that both of Student’s parents signed the agreement on August 2, 2016. None of Student’s documents demonstrate that the parties entered into a subsequent agreement that superseded the agreement signed by Parents on August 2, 2016.
Student has failed to state adequate grounds to grant reconsideration. His motion for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
DATE: June 28, 2017
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings