California OAH special education order · April 8, 2019
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Continuance of Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing
OAH Case No. 2019020953 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH granted Napa Valley's reconsideration and continued the hearing to May 21, 2019, after sworn declarations showed the special education director, Parent, and district counsel were unavailable.
Summary
OAH first denied Napa Valley's request to continue the due process hearing because spring break is not good cause and the district gave no declarations showing anyone was unavailable. A day later, Napa Valley asked for reconsideration and filed sworn declarations. The declarations showed the special education director had a pre-planned vacation, Parent was unavailable, and district counsel had earlier-scheduled OAH hearings through mid-May. OAH found these were new facts, granted reconsideration, and continued the hearing to May 21, 2019.
Why it matters
A continuance request needs sworn declarations proving specific people are unavailable. Saying spring break is a conflict is not enough, but a party can fix a denial quickly by filing for reconsideration with the missing evidence.
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. 2019020953 v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL CONTINUANCE OF PREHEARING
DISTRICT. CONFERENCE AND DUE PROCESS
HEARING
On April 4, 2019, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that denied Napa Valley’s request for a hearing continuance without prejudice because: (1) spring break is not good cause for a continuance, and (2) Napa Valley failed to provide a declaration or evidence in support of its contention that witnesses and/or parties were unavailable to attend the scheduled hearing. On April 5, 2019, Napa Valley filed a motion for reconsideration with accompanying declarations.
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 Napa Valley alleged new facts and evidence in support of its request for reconsideration which included evidence of the director of special education’s pre-planned vacation during the scheduled hearing. Accordingly, Napa Valley’s request for reconsideration is granted.
Continuance Napa Valley established through sworn declarations the unavailability of the special education director and Parent for the scheduled due process hearing dates. Thus, good cause is established for a hearing continuance. Additionally, Napa Valley’s counsel established unavailability through mid-May due to earlier filed OAH cases scheduled for hearing. Thus, good cause is established to continue the hearing to May 21, 2019.
ORDER
1. The Motion for Reconsideration is Granted.
2. The Motion for Continuance is Granted.
3. All current prehearing conference and due process hearing dates are vacated.
4. The prehearing conference is scheduled for May 13, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
5. The due process hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., and
May 22 and May 23, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates, and shall subpoena witnesses if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will be available to testify.
A witness will not be regarded as unavailable for purposes of showing “good cause” to continue the hearing if the witness is not properly notified of the hearing date or properly subpoenaed, as applicable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 8, 2019
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings