California OAH special education order · July 19, 2017
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017061126 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the dismissal of the case because Student offered no new facts or law, and OAH lacks jurisdiction to enforce a private settlement agreement.
Summary
OAH dismissed Student's case on July 10, 2017. Student asked OAH to reconsider, arguing that OAH must hear the case because it involves District-funded services. The District did not oppose. OAH denied the request because Student raised no new facts, circumstances, or law, and because the services at issue came from a private settlement agreement rather than an IDEA claim, which puts the dispute outside OAH's jurisdiction under Wyner.
Why it matters
A claim that a district broke a settlement agreement belongs in a compliance complaint or court, not in an OAH due process case, even when the settlement covers district-funded services. A reconsideration request that only repeats earlier arguments, without new facts or law, will fail.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
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. 2017061126 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
CUCAMONGA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On July 10, 2017, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order that dismissed the above captioned case. On July 17, 2017, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for reconsideration. No opposition was received from Cucamonga Elementary School District.
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 alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. Rather, he reasserts that the Office of Administrative Hearings is bound to hear this matter because it involves District funded services. Student errs, as the services complained for arose from a private settlement agreement and does not involve a claim arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
OAH’s jurisdiction is limited to claims arising under the IDEA. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir.2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.) OAH does not have jurisdiction over claims alleging a school district’s failure to comply with a settlement agreement. (Id. at p. 1030.) Here, Student’s complaint failed to allege any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child, and is therefore outside of OAH’s jurisdiction.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).)
In sum, Student’s reassertion that OAH has jurisdiction over this matter merely because the alleged settlement violation involves District funded services is not consistent with the above authority. Accordingly, Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
DATE: July 19, 2017
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings