California OAH special education order · August 9, 2018
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2018070628 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH denied Student's motion to reconsider the denial of a continuance, holding that no rule gives a party time to reply to an opposition before OAH rules on a continuance request.
Summary
Student asked for a continuance of the prehearing conference and due process hearing. Orinda opposed, and the ALJ denied the continuance the same day. Student then filed a reply and moved for reconsideration, arguing he was entitled to three days to respond to Orinda's opposition before the ALJ ruled. OAH denied reconsideration because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and no statute or regulation gives a party time to reply to an opposition.
Why it matters
OAH tries to give parties three business days to respond to a continuance motion but is not required to, and there is no right to reply to an opposition. Parties should put their full argument in the original continuance request.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
- 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. 2018070628 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
ORINDA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On August 2, 2018, Student filed a request for continuance of the prehearing conference and due process hearing in this matter. Orinda Union School District filed an opposition to the request on August 6, 2018. The undersigned ALJ then issued an order that denied Student’s request for continuance on the same date.
On August 7, 2018, Student filed a reply to Orinda’s opposition to his request for continuance. On August 8, 2018, Student filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying his request for continuance on the ground that he was entitled to three days to respond to Orinda’s opposition before the ALJ could rule on the request for continuance.
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. OAH makes an effort to provide a party three business days to respond to another party’s motion for continuance. However, it is not required to do so. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 1, § 1020.) There are no statutes or regulations that give a party any time to respond to the other party’s response to his motion. If parties were entitled to have three days to respond to a pleading filed with OAH before OAH could rule on a motion, they could make it impossible for OAH to timely rule on a motion simply by filing multiple responses to each other’s responses. Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Student’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
DATE: August 9, 2018
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings