California OAH special education order · January 8, 2021
Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2020090375 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the dismissal of eight issues as barred by collateral estoppel because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only repeating arguments already rejected.
Summary
On December 30, 2020, OAH dismissed eight issues in Student's September 11, 2020 complaint because they had already been litigated and decided in a prior consolidated hearing, with a final decision issued November 24, 2020. Student asked OAH to reconsider, again arguing the issues were new. Upland Unified did not respond. The ALJ denied the request because it raised no new facts, circumstances, or law and simply repeated an argument the ALJ had already rejected.
Why it matters
Reconsideration is not a second chance to make the same argument. A party must show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and issues already decided in a final OAH decision generally cannot be relitigated in a new complaint.
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.
UPLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020090375
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
JANUARY 8, 2021
On December 30, 2020, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order dismissing eight issues in Student’s September 11, 2020 due process hearing request, also known as a complaint, as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. The Administrative Law Judge is referred to as ALJ.
On January 7, 2021, Student filed a request for reconsideration of the order dismissing issues barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Student did not request reconsideration of any other orders in the December 30, 2020 Order. OAH did not receive a response from Upland Unified.
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 request for reconsideration offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration. The request for reconsideration makes the same assertion that the issues raised in the September 11, 2020 complaint were new issues not litigated by Student and Upland Unified in the prior due process hearing and not decided in OAH’s November 24, 2020 Decision involving the consolidated matters in OAH case numbers 2019080541, 2020040245, and 2020010465. The ALJ rejected that assertion, finding that the eight issues raised in the September 11, 2020 complaint were litigated by the parties and decided by OAH in the prior due process hearing and were therefore, barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The November 24, 2020 Decision was a final administrative decision. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is denied.
ORDER
Student has not established the December 30, 2020 Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings