California OAH special education order · October 18, 2017
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017090367 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Liberty's request to reconsider its refusal to dismiss Student's claims before September 11, 2015, because Liberty offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
Liberty asked OAH to reconsider an October 6, 2017 order. That order had denied Liberty's motion to dismiss Student's claims dating from before September 11, 2015. Liberty argued the order departed from OAH's "pattern and practice" and that the claims should be decided before hearing. The ALJ denied reconsideration because Liberty offered no new facts or law, OAH decisions are not precedent, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure. Student must prove at hearing that she is entitled to raise the older claims, and Liberty may challenge that evidence there.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a motion to dismiss or a reconsideration request to knock out older claims before hearing. Whether claims past the two-year limit can go forward, for example under a statute of limitations exception, is decided on evidence at hearing.
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:
STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017090367 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
LIBERTY UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On October 6, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying Liberty’s motion to dismiss claims in Student’s request for due process hearing that predate September 11, 2015. On October 11, 2016, Liberty filed a motion for reconsideration. On October 16, 2017, Student filed a brief and a declaration in opposition to the motion for reconsideration. On October 17, 2017, Student filed an amended declaration in support of her opposition to Liberty’s 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
Reconsideration Liberty alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. Instead, Liberty argues that the October 6, 2017 order does not follow the “pattern and practice” of OAH. Liberty also argues that the motion should be granted because a notice of insufficiency does not allow for the issues to be determined dispositively.
OAH cases are not precedent. Furthermore, there is no provision for a summary judgment procedure in either state or federal special education law. As stated in the prior order, OAH considers all claims within its jurisdiction. These claims are within the jurisdiction of OAH. Student shall have the burden of proving entitlement to raise claims prior to September 11, 2015, at hearing, at which time Liberty shall have the opportunity to challenge any evidence presented.
Accordingly, Liberty’s request for reconsideration is DENIED. The case shall proceed on the previously scheduled dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 18, 2017
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings