California OAH special education order · July 17, 2017
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017060767 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH denied Alameda's motion to reconsider an order finding Student's complaint sufficient, because Alameda offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
Alameda Unified School District asked OAH to reconsider a July 5, 2017 order that found Student's due process complaint sufficient. Alameda argued that the order overlooked that Alameda and Nea are separate agencies, and that the complaint did not tie 2017 independent assessment findings to a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in 2015-2016. Student opposed the motion. OAH denied reconsideration, noting that both the complaint and the earlier order recognized the two separate agencies. It also found the complaint sufficiently alleged that needs identified in the 2017 independent evaluations likely existed during 2015-2016, when Student was enrolled in Alameda.
Why it matters
A complaint can rely on later independent evaluations to show a district missed needs in an earlier school year, as long as it alleges those needs likely existed back then. Reconsideration requires new facts, circumstances, or law, not a repeat of earlier arguments.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017060767 v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER OF
DISTRICT AND NEA COMMUNITY DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY
LEARNING CENTER CHARTER OF DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On July 5, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that determined Student’s complaint to be sufficient under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii). On July 11, 2017, Alameda Unified School District filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 13, 2017, Student filed an opposition to the motion.
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
Alameda argues that the July 5, 2017 order determining the sufficiency of Student’s complaint failed to note that Alameda and Nea Community Learning Center Charter School District are two distinct local education agencies and that the complaint fails to provide facts establishing a nexus between the 2017 findings and recommendations from Student’s independent assessors and Alameda’s alleged failure to provide Student a free appropriate public education during the 2015-2016 school year.
Student’s complaint does acknowledge Alameda and Nea are two distinct LEAs, and the July 5, 2017 OAH Order recognized that distinction. What Student’s compliant provides with sufficient facts, is that the independent assessors’ findings and recommendations, though determined in 2017, could have been present and appropriate during the 2015-2016 school year while Student was enrolled in Alameda. Thus, Student argues that Alameda denied Student a FAPE during the 2015-2016 school year by failing to identify Student’s needs and provide the appropriate special education and related services Student required that came to light through Student’s 2017 independent evaluations. Alameda alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, Alameda’s request for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Alameda’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Determination of Sufficiency is denied.
DATE: July 17, 2017
ROMMEL P. CRUZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings