California OAH special education order · April 24, 2020
Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2020010042, 2019120777 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's motion to reconsider a short COVID-19 continuance granted to Bakersfield, calling the motion gamesmanship with no new facts or law, and warned that similar motions could bring sanctions.
This case went to decision
Student v. Bakersfield City School District (consolidated): Bakersfield City must fund two IEEs and compensatory tutoring, counseling and social skills for a kindergartner; mental health assessment upheld. (2020)
Summary
On April 23, 2020, OAH denied Bakersfield's request for an in-person hearing instead of a videoconference, but granted in part its request to continue the hearing because COVID-19 Safer at Home orders made preparation difficult. Student moved for reconsideration the next day, arguing that Bakersfield had not actually sought a continuance or shown good cause for one. OAH denied the motion because it offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. OAH also noted that the short continuance lets both parties comply with OAH's new pandemic procedures, and it warned that further motions of this kind by either party could lead to sanctions for bad faith and frivolous conduct.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires new facts, circumstances, or law, not a repeat of earlier arguments. ALJs may treat technical challenges to reasonable pandemic-era scheduling relief as gamesmanship and warn of sanctions.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020010042
and
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019120777
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
APRIL 24, 2020
On April 23, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order that denied Bakersfield City School District’s request that this matter proceed by way of in person hearing and not by videoconference, and granting in part its request to continue the hearing due to difficulties preparing for hearing because of the Covid-19 Safer at Home orders. On April 24, 2020, Student filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that Bakersfield did not establish good cause for a continuance if it did indeed seek a continuance. On April 24, 2020, Bakersfield filed an opposition that asserts that it did seek a continuance in its prior motion that also sought to prevent the Office of Administrative Hearings, known as OAH, from convening a videoconference hearing.
The same date, Student filed a responsive pleading.
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’s motion for reconsideration strains to be credible in its contention that Bakersfield’s prior motion failed to seek a continuance in this matter and does not offer any new facts, circumstances or law. to support reconsideration. Student’s motion is more gamesmanship that an actual factual or legal argument, and fails to take into consideration the seriousness of the situation that all participants in OAH matters have endured due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Further, the short continuance granted permits both parties to properly comply with new OAH procedures established earlier this week.
Accordingly, Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Subsequent motions of this nature by either party may subject that party to sanctions for bad faith and frivolous conduct.
ORDER
Student has not established that the April 23, 2020 Order should be reconsidered.
The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Peter Paul Castillo Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings