California OAH special education order · January 17, 2020
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2019101000 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Sonoma Valley's request to reconsider its denial of a motion to bifurcate the hearing because the district offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only repeated arguments.
Summary
Sonoma Valley asked OAH to reconsider a January 8, 2020 order denying its motion to bifurcate (split) the due process hearing. Student did not respond. OAH denied reconsideration because the motion only repeated the district's earlier arguments, including its claim that Student misstated facts, which had already been considered. A claim that the ALJ misunderstood the arguments or misapplied the law is a reason to seek review, not reconsideration.
Why it matters
Reconsideration at OAH requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, raised within about ten days. Re-arguing the same points or saying the judge got the law wrong will not succeed, so parents and advocates do not need to worry much about a district's repeat motion.
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,
v.
SONOMA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019101000
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 8, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Sonoma Valley Unified School District’s motion to bifurcate the due process hearing in this matter. On January 15, 2020, Sonoma Valley filed a motion for reconsideration. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Student.
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
Sonoma Valley’s motion for reconsideration alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request. It repeats the same arguments made in Sonoma Valley’s original motion and reply. Sonoma Valley’s contention that Student misstated facts in his opposition was considered in the original ruling, is not new, and does not support a request for reconsideration.
To the extent Sonoma Valley contends the undersigned ALJ misunderstood the arguments or misapplied the law, that is not a basis for reconsideration, but for seeking review if and to the extent available.
For the reasons stated above, Sonoma Valley’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 17, 2020 Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings