California OAH special education order · November 12, 2019

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration and Order Granting Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2019070223 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH denied Palmdale's request to reconsider reopening Student's case after the school board failed to adopt the settlement, because Palmdale never explained why it did not raise its arguments earlier; continuance granted.

Ruling Reconsideration

Summary

OAH had reopened Student's case because Palmdale's school board did not adopt the parties' settlement agreement. Palmdale asked OAH to reconsider the reopening or, in the alternative, to continue the case. OAH denied reconsideration because Palmdale did not explain why it had not raised its information when it responded to Student's motion to reopen. OAH also found that Palmdale's argument that Student would not win, because Student was no longer subject to discipline and suffered no harm, is a dispute for hearing. Student did not oppose the continuance, which OAH granted, resetting the prehearing conference to December 6, 2019 and the hearing to December 17 through 19, 2019.

Why it matters

A case can be reopened when a district's board does not approve a settlement. A district that does not respond to a motion to reopen cannot later use reconsideration to raise arguments it could have made the first time. Arguments about whether the student will win belong at hearing.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • 34 C.F.R. § 300.515
  • Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
  • Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332

Topics

reconsideration reopen case settlement not approved school board approval continuance discipline

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,

v.

PALMDALE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2019070223

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

On November 5, 2019, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order that granted Student’s request to reopen the case as the school board of Palmdale School District did not adopt the settlement agreement between the parties. On November 8, 2019, Palmdale filed a Motion to Reconsider the Reopening Case or Request for Continuance. On November 12, 2019, Student filed an opposition to the reconsideration request, and a non-opposition to the continuance request.

APPLICABLE LAW

RECONSIDERATION

The Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, 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.)

CONTINUANCE

A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause.

(34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal.

Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance or imposing conditions on the continuance; and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

DISCUSSION

RECONSIDERATION

Palmdale did not establish cause to reconsider OAH’s November 5, 2019 Order to Reopen Student’s Case as Palmdale did not establish why it did not respond to Student’s motion with the information in its Motion for Reconsideration. While Student’s attorney should have requested that OAH reopen the case before the October 3, 2019 dismissal order, that is not sufficient cause for OAH to reconsider its order to reopen this case. Further, the information in Palmdale’s reconsideration motion that Student will not prevail as Student is no longer subject to discipline and suffered no harm is a factual and legal dispute for hearing.

CONTINUANCE

Palmdale’s request for continuance of the PHC is granted for good cause. All previously scheduled dates are vacated. The case shall proceed as follows:

Prehearing Conference: December 6, 2019, at 10:00 AM All other prehearing matters shall be addressed at the December 6, 2019 Prehearing Conference. All prehearing motions must be filed three business days before the Prehearing Conference.

Due Process Hearing: December 17 through 19, 2019.

The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM on the first day of the hearing and at 9:00 AM on all other days, unless otherwise ordered. The hearing shall continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ.

ORDER

1. Palmdale has not established that the November 5, 2019 Order should be

reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.

2. Palmdale’s request to continue this matter is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 12, 2019 Peter Paul Castillo Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings