California OAH special education order · February 7, 2018
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017051407 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH denied Yuba City's motion to reconsider an order lifting a no-contact rule with the hearing interpreter, because the District offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
During an ongoing due process hearing, the ALJ had verbally ordered that no one communicate with the interpreter, then later rescinded that verbal order in a clarifying order issued at Student's request. Yuba City's response, received after the clarifying order issued, was treated as a motion for reconsideration. In it, Yuba City asked that contact with the interpreter be limited to serving a subpoena rather than fully rescinding the no-contact order. OAH denied the motion because Yuba City alleged no new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
Why it matters
A party asking OAH to reconsider a ruling must point to new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Simply asking for a different outcome will be denied.
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. 2017051407 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
There is an ongoing due process hearing in this matter. On January 25, 2018, there was an in camera discussion on the record about a procedural matter among the attorneys for the parties and the undersigned administrative law judge. Following the in camera discussion, the ALJ went back on the record with everyone present, and continued the matter to February 12, 2018, and ordered no communication between the interpreter and all persons present.
On January 30, 2018, the undersigned ALJ issued an order that set a further evidentiary proceeding for February 12, 2018, concerning the matter discussed in the in camera session on January 25, 2018. On January 31, 2018, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, a request for clarification of the order, particularly as it pertained to the verbal no communication order of January 25, 2018. On February 5, 2018, the undersigned ALJ issued an order that clarified a previous order, and rescinded the verbal order that no one have contact with the interpreter.
On February 5, 2018, after the clarifying order had been issued, OAH received a response from Yuba City Unified School District to Student’s request for clarification of a previous order. This response is determined to be a motion for reconsideration of the clarifying order.
APPLICABLE LAW
OAH 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
In its motion for reconsideration, Yuba City asks that the ALJ, rather than rescinding the verbal order that parties have no communication with interpreter, restrict communication with the interpreter to service of a subpoena only. Yuba City alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Yuba City’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 7, 2018
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings