California OAH special education order · January 25, 2021
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2020120488 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Tahoe Alpine SELPA's request to reconsider its refusal to dismiss the SELPA, because the SELPA offered no new facts or law and Student alleged both agencies denied a FAPE.
Summary
Tahoe Alpine SELPA asked OAH to reconsider a January 8, 2021 order that refused to dismiss it as a party. It made the request inside the joint prehearing conference statement it filed with Lake Tahoe Unified School District, and Parent did not respond. The ALJ denied the request because the SELPA only repeated its earlier argument that it made no educational decisions and that the District alone was responsible for FAPE. Because Student's complaint alleged that both the District and the SELPA denied a FAPE, the SELPA falls under OAH's jurisdiction, and the factual question must be decided at hearing.
Why it matters
A SELPA named in a complaint that alleges it denied a FAPE generally cannot get out of the case before hearing just by saying the district made the decisions. A reconsideration request also fails if it only repeats earlier arguments without new facts or law.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 56500
- Ed. Code, § 56028.5
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.
LAKE TAHOE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
TAHOE ALPINE SELPA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020120488
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
JANUARY 25, 2021
On January 8, 2021, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Tahoe Alpine SELPA’s request to be dismissed as a party. On January 20, 2021, Tahoe Alpine SELPA filed a motion for reconsideration, contained in Lake Tahoe Unified School District and Tahoe Alpine SELPA’s Prehearing Conference Statement. The Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, did not receive a response from Parent on behalf of 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
Tahoe Alpine SELPA offers no new facts, circumstances or law, to support reconsideration. Rather, Tahoe Alpine SELPA reasserts that it did not make any educational decisions regarding Student’s school program and that Lake Tahoe Unified School District was responsible for providing Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE. Tahoe Alpine SELPA overlooks that Student’s complaint alleged that Lake Tahoe Unified School District and Tahoe Alpine SELPA each denied Student a FAPE. Consequently, Tahoe Alpine SELPA falls under OAH’s jurisdiction and a question of fact exists that requires a finding by an Administrative Law Judge following a due process hearing. (Ed. Code, §§§ 56501, subd. (a), 56500 and 56028.5.)
ORDER
Tahoe Alpine SELPA has not established the January 8, 2021 Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H. Kamoroff Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings