California OAH special education order · September 23, 2020
Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2020061034 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of leave to amend the complaint because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and only repeated earlier arguments.
Summary
At the prehearing conference, the ALJ denied Student's written request to amend the complaint. Student then asked OAH to reconsider that ruling, and Folsom-Cordova Unified School District opposed. OAH denied reconsideration because the request repeated arguments already made and considered and presented nothing new. OAH added that a claim that the ALJ misapplied the law on amendment or the statute of limitations is not a basis for reconsideration but for seeking review, if review is available.
Why it matters
A reconsideration request must show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, along with a reason they were not raised earlier. Arguing that the ALJ got the law wrong belongs in an appeal or other review, not in a reconsideration 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020061034
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
SEPTEMBER 23, 2020
On September 21, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge denied Student’s written request to amend the complaint filed September 18, 2020, after oral argument by both parties during the prehearing conference. On September 21, 2020, Student filed a request for reconsideration. On September 23, 2020, Folsom-Cordova Unified School District filed an opposition.
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
Student’s request for reconsideration alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration. It repeats the same arguments Student made in his original request and during oral argument at the prehearing conference. The information contained in the reconsideration request was considered in the original ruling, is not new, and does not support a request for reconsideration.
To the extent Student contends that the undersigned ALJ misapplied the law concerning amendment or the statute of limitations, that is not a basis for reconsideration, but for seeking review, if and to the extent available.
For the reasons stated above, Student’s request for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings