California OAH special education order · April 25, 2018
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2018031003 · ALJ Jackie C. Dai
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider its denial of stay put at The Prentice School because Student offered no new facts or law, only the same IEP and prior written notice already submitted.
This case went to decision
Student v. Springs Charter Schools, also known as River Springs Charter School (consolidated): River Springs Charter must provide 128 hours of compensatory instruction, but its offer of placement at Flabob Academy is upheld as FAPE. (2019)
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its April 11, 2018 order denying stay put. Student argued that OAH ruled before receiving her reply to River Springs' opposition, and that she wanted a non-public school generally rather than The Prentice School specifically. River Springs opposed. OAH denied the motion because Student's reply and motion attached the same IEP and prior written notice already filed, so there was no new evidence. OAH also found that Joshua A. did not help Student, since the August 4, 2017 IEP offered Prentice only temporarily and the parties agreed it would not be stay put.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, so resubmitting the same documents or reframing the request will not succeed. A placement the district offers for a limited time, and that the parties agree is not stay put, is unlikely to become the stay put placement.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2009) 559 F.3d 1036
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. 2018031003 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL.
On April 11, 2018, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that On April 11, 2018, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Denying Motion For Stay Put. On April 16, 2018, Student filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that OAH did not receive Student’s response to River Springs Charter School’s opposition before OAH denied the motion for stay put. On April 18, 2018, River Springs filed an opposition to Student’s motion for reconsideration contending that OAH was not required to consider Student’s response before issuing the order denying Student’s motion for stay put and that the motion for reconsideration states no new facts, circumstances or law justifying reconsideration.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
OAH 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.)
Student’s response to River Springs’ opposition and Student’s motion for reconsideration are supported by declarations and exhibits. Both the response and the motion for reconsideration contain exactly the same documents that Student included in her first amended motion for stay put: a copy of the last signed and implemented IEP dated August 4, 2017 consisting of 5 pages, and a copy of the prior written notice dated May 12, 2017 consisting of 16 pages. No new evidence was presented in either the response or the motion for reconsideration.
Student is now asserting in her response and motion for reconsideration that she is not requesting The Prentice School specifically as stay put, but a non-public school. On March 22, 2018, Student filed a motion for stay put requesting an order that Student “remain in her current educational placement at Prentice School pending the hearing or her due process matter.” On April 4, 2018, Student filed a first amended motion for stay put contending River Springs should be precluded from removing Student from her non public school placement during the pendency of the litigation. The only non public school from which Student could “be removed” was a contingent temporary placement at Prentice. Student relies upon Joshua A. in her first amended motion for stay put and her motion for reconsideration. (Joshua A. v.
Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist. (E.D. Cal. August 20, 2007, No. CV 07-01057 LEW (KJMx))
2007 WL 2389868, ** 2-4, affd. Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2009) 559 F.3d 1036 (Joshua A.).) Joshua A. does not support her argument. In Joshua A. it was unclear which non-public agency would be the provider, here it was clear that the parties agreed that the Prentice School would not constitute stay put and River Springs was only offering the Prentice School for a limited time period in the operative IEP dated August 4,
2017. No new law has been presented.
For the reasons stated above, the Student’s Motion for is Reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 25, 2018
JACKIE C. DAI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings