California OAH special education order · September 22, 2020
Order Denying Folsom-Cordova Unified School District's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2020061034 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH denied Folsom-Cordova's second request to reconsider its refusal to dismiss Student's records-related claims because the District offered no new facts or law, and OAH confirmed it has jurisdiction.
Summary
After OAH denied Folsom-Cordova's motion to dismiss or for reconsideration, the District filed another reconsideration motion. It argued that Student was enrolled in another district at the time of Parent's January 2019 records request, so it owed Student no free appropriate public education, and that OAH lacks jurisdiction over parental records requests. Student did not respond. OAH denied the motion because the District added no new factual or legal support, and held that both issues (over-disclosure of records to another district, and failure to give Parent complete records, which interfered with Parent's ability to obtain an IEP) relate to the provision of a FAPE and fall within OAH's jurisdiction.
Why it matters
A district cannot get a second ruling by repeating the same arguments; reconsideration requires new facts, circumstances, or law. Records-disclosure and records-access claims can be heard at OAH when they are tied to a denial of FAPE or to a parent's ability to take part in the IEP process.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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.
FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020061034
ORDER DENYING FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020
On September 17, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Folsom-Cordova Unified School District’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively Motion for Reconsideration. On September 18, 2020, Folsom-Cordova 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
Folsom-Cordova argues the facts are undisputed that at the time of Student’s January 2019 records request Student was enrolled in another school district and therefore it did not owe Student a free appropriate public education. Folsom-Cordova asserts Student acknowledges in his opposition to the motion to dismiss that he was enrolled at another school district at the time of his January 2019 records request.
Folsom-Cordova further asserts OAH lacks jurisdiction over Parental requests for student records.
The issues before OAH as clarified in the September 18, 2020 Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference are as follows:
1. Did Folsom-Cordova deny Student a free appropriate public education by
releasing information to another school district in response to Parent’s January 2019 request that exceeded the scope of Parent’s consent to disclose?
2. Did Folsom Cordova fail to provide Parent with a complete copy of
Student’s records in response to Parent’s January 2019 records request, and did that failure interfere with Parent’s ability to obtain an individualized education program for Student? These issues relate to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) OAH has jurisdiction to adjudicate these issues.
(Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029).
ORDER
Folsom-Cordova has not established the September 17, 2020 Order should be reconsidered as it has not added any additional factual or legal support to warrant reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings