California OAH special education order · May 7, 2019
Order Denying Motion to Reopen Case
OAH Case No. 2019030400, 2019030359 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH denied Student's motion to reopen his withdrawn case. Student's belief that withdrawing his case would also dismiss Garden Grove's consolidated case was not a mistake that justifies reopening.
Summary
After Student withdrew his due process case, which had been consolidated with Garden Grove's case, OAH dismissed it. Student then moved to reopen, saying he mistakenly thought withdrawing would end both cases. OAH denied the motion. Student's withdrawal request listed only his own case number, and it was unreasonable to believe he could dismiss the district's case on his own. OAH noted that Student may refile his complaint with the same issues.
Why it matters
In consolidated cases, withdrawing your own complaint does not end the district's case, and OAH will not reopen a withdrawn case because of that misunderstanding. Families should understand the effect of a withdrawal before filing it, although refiling the same issues may still be possible.
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2019030400 v.
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2019030359
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. REOPEN CASE
On March 8, 2019, Garden Grove Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing, naming Student. The case was designated as OAH case number 2019030359. On March 11, 2019, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, naming Garden Grove. The case was designated as OAH case number 2019030400.
On March 20, 2019, Garden Grove filed a Motion to Consolidate its case with Student’s case which was granted.
On April 24, 2019, Student filed a request to withdraw his case. OAH dismissed Student’s case, OAH case number 2019030400, on April 26, 2019. The same day, Student filed a motion requesting OAH reopen his case.
DISCUSSION
Student argues that OAH should reopen his case because he mistakenly believed that by withdrawing it, both Student’s case, OAH case number 2019030400, and Garden Grove’s case, OAH case number 2019030359, would be dismissed. Once he realized that only Student’s case was dismissed, not Garden Grove’s case, he filed this motion to reopen.
Student’s mistake is not the type of mistake that allows a party to reopen a case.
Student’s request to withdraw, dated April 24, 2019, included only Student’s case number,
2019030400. Thus, Student’s argument that he attempted to dismiss both cases is
unpersuasive. Further, it is unreasonable that Student believed that he could unilaterally dismiss the opposing party’s case. Accordingly, Student’s request to reopen his case is denied. This Order does not preclude Student from refiling his complaint with the same issues.
ORDER
Student’s motion to reopen his case, OAH case number 2019030400, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 7, 2019
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings