California OAH special education order · September 3, 2019
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2019060280 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider a stay put order. Proof of a 2012 mild-moderate placement did not show it was the last agreed-upon and implemented program, so stay put remains moderate-severe.
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its July 31, 2019 order, which set stay put as a middle school moderate-severe program instead of the mild-moderate program at Rogers Middle School that Student wanted. Student argued that Long Beach Unified had made misrepresentations, and attached a 2012 speech pathologist letter showing a mild-moderate placement and a 2016 IEP consent page marked as not consented. The district did not respond. OAH denied the motion because Student offered no new facts or law showing that a mild-moderate program was the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP at any time from 2013 to the present, and Student had been in a moderate-severe program for at least the past two school years.
Why it matters
Stay put is based on the last agreed-upon and implemented program, not on an older placement from years ago. Evidence offered for reconsideration must show what the student was actually receiving when the dispute arose.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019060280
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On July 31, 2019, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Student’s request to designate a mild-moderate program at Rogers Middle School as stay put. Instead, the order identified stay put as a middle school moderate- severe program. On August 15, 2019, Parents on behalf of Student filed a motion for reconsideration. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Long Beach Unified School District.
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, generally within ten days. (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 offers no new facts, circumstances or law to justify reconsideration.
Student’s motion for reconsideration contends that Long Beach Unified made misrepresentations in its opposition to Student’s stay put motion. Specifically, Student claims that he was once placed in a mild-moderate program. To support this claim, Student attached to his motion for reconsideration a letter dated December 10, 2012, prepared by a Long Beach Unified speech language pathologist who noted that Student “currently attends a Mild-Moderate SDC class” at Long Beach Unified’s Buffum Total Learning Center. Student also attached the consent page of the March 18, 2016 individualized education program, also called an IEP, with Parents’ initials to the statement “I DO NOT CONSENT to this Individualized Education Program.”
At the time Parents on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing, Student last attended a moderate-severe program. Though Student now presents information reflecting Student’s placement in a mild-moderate program in 2012, Student presents no information to demonstrate that at any point in time from 2013 to the present, a mild-moderate program was the last agreed upon and implemented IEP.
Student had been in a moderate-severe program for at least the past two school years.
Thus, as noted in the July 31, 2019 Order, the implemented educational program Student last attended prior to this dispute arising was a moderate-severe program.
ORDER
Student has not established the July 31, 2019 Order should be reconsidered.
Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
DATED: September 3, 2019 Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings