California OAH special education order · September 29, 2020
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2020070315 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Golden Plains' request to reconsider its refusal to dismiss Student's case, finding no new facts or law and holding that Student's death after filing does not automatically moot the complaint.
Summary
Golden Plains Unified School District asked OAH to reconsider its September 17, 2020 order denying the district's motion to dismiss Student's complaint. Student did not respond. OAH denied reconsideration because Golden Plains offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and only repeated its earlier arguments. OAH also noted that Student's claims fall within its jurisdiction, and that its broad equitable powers to remedy a denial of a free appropriate public education mean Student's passing after the complaint was filed does not, by itself, moot or end the case.
Why it matters
A request for reconsideration that only repeats earlier arguments will be denied. The order also signals that a special education case can continue after a student dies, because OAH's equitable remedies are not limited to relief given directly to the student.
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(i)(1)(C)(iii)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g)
- School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education (1985) 471 U.S. 359
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.
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS,
GOLDEN PLAINS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND
KERMAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020070315
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2020
On September 17, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Golden Plains Unified School District’s motion to dismiss complaint. On September 25, 2020, Golden Plains filed a motion for reconsideration. The Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, did not receive a response from Student.
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
Golden Plains offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration. Golden Plains restates similar arguments from its motion to dismiss, that were denied by OAH. Golden Plains again overlooks that the issues contained in Student’s complaint fall squarely within OAH’s jurisdiction. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed.
Code, § 56501.)
Golden Plains also overlooks that OAH has broad equitable powers to remedy the failure of a school district to provide a free appropriate public education to a disabled child that could include relief that is not provided to Student. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); see School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Dept. of Education (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 369 [105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385].) Consequently, Student’s passing after the complaint was filed does not, by itself, moot or extinguish the complaint.
ORDER
Golden Plain has not established that OAH’s September 17, 2020 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings