California OAH special education order · January 27, 2020
Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2019120212 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of a late continuance motion because the new declarations and argument were available earlier and disagreement alone does not justify reconsideration.
Summary
OAH had denied Student's motion to continue the hearing because it was late, had no declaration signed under penalty of perjury explaining the delay, and did not show good cause. Student then asked for reconsideration and attached declarations from Student's attorney and the attorney's legal assistant, along with a new argument. OAH denied the request. Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, did not explain why the declarations and argument were left out of the original motion, and mere disagreement with the earlier order is not grounds for reconsideration. The hearing stayed set for the next day, January 28, 2020.
Why it matters
Put all supporting declarations and arguments in the first motion, especially a late continuance request. OAH will not let a party fix a weak motion through reconsideration using facts or arguments it already had.
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.
BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019120212
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 21, 2020, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, a Motion to Continue the due process hearing in this case. On January 24, 2020, OAH issued an order denying Student’s motion because it was untimely; was not supported by a declaration signed under the penalty of perjury, to establish good cause for why the motion was filed late; and it failed to establish good cause for the continuance. On January 27, 2020, Student filed a Motion for Reconsideration with supporting declarations from Student’s attorney and the attorney’s legal assistant.
APPLICABLE LAW
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.)
DISCUSSION
Student offers no new or different facts, circumstances, or law that justify reconsideration of the January 24, 2020 Order. Instead, Student expresses disagreement with the prior Order. Although the Motion for Reconsideration includes supporting declarations to explain why the Motion to Continue was filed late, and offers a new argument to support the continuance request, it fails to explain why Student did not include the supporting declarations and the new argument in the original motion. The facts and argument Student now offers were available when Student filed the Motion to Continue, and should have been offered at that time. Moreover, Student’s disagreement with the prior Order does not justify reconsideration.
ORDER
Student’s Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The due process hearing will proceed as scheduled on January 28, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 27, 2020 Tara Doss Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings