California OAH special education order · October 12, 2018
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2018090758 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Long Beach's request to reconsider a stay put order keeping Student's IEP bus transportation, because the district offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
On October 1, 2018, OAH granted Student's stay put request, keeping the bus transportation in Student's IEP in place. Long Beach asked OAH to reconsider the next day, and Student did not file an opposition. OAH denied the request because the cases the district cited were all decided before it filed its original opposition. The district also presented no new facts, attached no sworn declaration, and did not explain why it had not raised those cases earlier.
Why it matters
A district cannot use reconsideration to reargue a stay put loss with older case law it could have cited the first time. Parents can expect a stay put order to hold unless genuinely new facts or law are shown.
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. 2018090758 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT .
On October 1, 2018, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting Student’s request for stay put as to the bus transportation provided in his individualized education program. On October 2, 2018, Long Beach Unified School District filed a motion for reconsideration. No opposition was received from Student.
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 Long Beach alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. The additional cases cited in the motion were all decided prior to Long Beach’s previously filed opposition. No new facts were presented. No sworn declaration attesting to the discovery of any new facts or law was attached to the motion; nor was any explanation provided for failing to previously argue the additional cases cited in the motion for reconsideration.
Accordingly, Long Beach’s request for reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 12, 2018
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings