California OAH special education order · November 20, 2017
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2017101143 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied District's request to reconsider a ruling that Student's complaint was sufficient, because District only disagreed with the ruling and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
District asked OAH to reconsider its order finding Student's due process complaint sufficient. District argued that this order conflicted with a separate order, issued the same day by a different judge, denying District's partial motion to dismiss. Student opposed. OAH denied reconsideration because District offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law and simply repeated its earlier arguments. OAH also explained that a sufficiency review and a motion to dismiss are decided under different legal standards.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires something new. Disagreeing with a ruling or repeating old arguments will not get it changed. A complaint can be found sufficient on its face even while separate dismissal arguments are being decided under a different standard.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Paul Kamaroff, Administrative Law Judge (issued order denying District's motion to dismiss)
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. 2017101143 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On November 6, 2017, District filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Student’s Due Process Hearing Request. On November 9, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency.
On November 13, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Paul Kamaroff issued an Order Denying District’s Motion to Dismiss. Also on November 13, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order determining Student’s complaint sufficient.
On November 16, 2017, District filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the sufficiency of Student’s complaint. On November 17, 2017, Student filed an opposition to District’s Motion for Reconsideration.
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
District moves for reconsideration on the grounds that OAH “simultaneously issued two separate orders, by different ALJs, that are directly inconsistent with one another.”
District does not present any new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Instead, District simply asserts disagreement with the order determining Student’s complaint sufficient and reiterates arguments made in its Motion to Dismiss.
In determining Student’s complaint sufficient, the undersigned ALJ evaluated the complaint on its face. Based on that review, the complaint was deemed sufficient. The legal standards that apply to whether a complaint is sufficient and whether a complaint is subject to dismissal are different. District’s disagreement with the order determining sufficiency does not constitute new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration.
Accordingly, District’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 20, 2017
TARA DOSS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings