California OAH special education order · June 20, 2019
Order of No Action Regarding Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2019040157 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH took no action on Student's second reconsideration motion, explaining that parties cannot refile the same motion to get a different result and that no law requires assigning a different ALJ.
Summary
OAH dismissed Student's amended complaint because a December 2018 settlement agreement and release barred the claims, and it then denied Student's first motion for reconsideration. Student filed a second motion for reconsideration and asked OAH to assign a different ALJ to decide it. OAH took no action on the request. It found that no law requires reassigning a reconsideration request to another judge, and that the motion did not show why further review was needed. Parties may not file the same motion repeatedly to get the result they want.
Why it matters
Once a settlement-release dismissal and a reconsideration request have been ruled on, filing the same motion again or asking for a new judge will not reopen the matter. Families usually need new facts, new law, or another forum to keep pursuing those claims.
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. 2019040157 v. ORDER OF NO ACTION REGARDING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On May 22, 2019, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that dismissed Student’s amended complaint on the grounds that Student’s claims were barred by a December 18, 2018 final settlement agreement and release entered into by the parties.
On June 4, 2019, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order denying Student’s motion for reconsideration.
On June 19, 2019, Student filed a second motion for reconsideration, and also requested that OAH assign a different ALJ to Student’s request.
First, no provision of law exists that requires OAH to reassign Student’s request for reconsideration to obtain a different ruling. Secondly, OAH takes no action in regards to Student’s second motion for reconsideration as the motion fails to demonstrate why the order of dismissal and order denying reconsideration necessitates further review by OAH as parties are not entitled to file the same motion multiple times to receive the result that they want.
Therefore, OAH will take no action as to Student’s June 19, 2019 request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 20, 2019
ROMMEL P. CRUZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings