California OAH special education order · December 4, 2019
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2019110584 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH denied San Francisco's request to reconsider the hearing issue set in the prehearing conference order because the District offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
This case went to decision
San Francisco Unified School District v. Student: San Francisco Unified may not implement its SOAR Academy IEP without parent consent because the offer was unclear. (2020)
Summary
San Francisco filed its own due process case and, on the same day the prehearing conference order issued, asked OAH to reconsider how the sole hearing issue was framed. Student did not respond. The ALJ denied the motion because San Francisco presented no new or different facts, circumstances, or law. The issue stays as stated in the prehearing conference order, and all dates are confirmed.
Why it matters
A party cannot get OAH to reconsider a prehearing ruling just by disagreeing with it. It must show new facts, circumstances, or law, even when the other side does not oppose the request.
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:
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019110584
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On December 3, 2019, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order following prehearing conference. On December 3, 2019, San Francisco filed a motion to reconsider the sole issue to be decided at hearing. 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
San Francisco offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration.
ORDER
1. San Francisco has not established the December 3, 2019 Order should be
reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
2. The issue remains as specified in the Order Following Prehearing Conference.
3. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 4, 2019 Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings