California OAH special education order · February 12, 2018
Order Denying District's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2018010646 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied District's unopposed motion to reconsider the denial of its insufficiency notice because District only repeated its earlier arguments and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
On January 26, 2018, OAH denied District's notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint. On January 31, 2018, District asked OAH to reconsider, and Student did not file an opposition. OAH denied the request because District offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and only repeated its original arguments about the same pleading. OAH added that a claim that the ALJ misapplied the law on adequate notice is not a ground for reconsideration but a matter for review, if review is available.
Why it matters
Reconsideration at OAH needs new facts, circumstances, or law, not a repeat of earlier arguments. A party that thinks the ALJ simply got the law wrong must seek review elsewhere, so parents can expect complaints found sufficient to move forward.
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. 2018010646 v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On January 26, 2018, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying District’s notice of insufficiency. On January 31, 2018, District filed a motion for reconsideration. No opposition has been received.
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’s motion for reconsideration alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. It repeats the same arguments District made in its original motion, and refers to the same pleading, and does not support a request for reconsideration.
To the extent District contends that the undersigned ALJ misapplied the law concerning adequate notice, that is not a basis for reconsideration, but for seeking review if and to the extent available.
For the reasons stated above, District’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 12, 2018
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings