California OAH special education order · August 3, 2021
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2021060761, 2021060366 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Elite's request to reconsider an order letting Student amend his complaint because Elite did not show its opposition would have changed the result or offer new facts or law.
Summary
Elite asked OAH to reconsider its July 30, 2021 order granting Student's motion to amend. Elite argued OAH ruled before the three-business-day window for written responses had run. OAH denied the request. It found that Student timely used his statutory right to amend: he filed more than five days before hearing, soon after hiring counsel, and only about a month after the original complaint, so there was no undue delay. Elite also showed no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Why it matters
Winning reconsideration takes new facts, circumstances, or law, not just a complaint about procedure. A party must also show the outcome would have been different. Parents who hire counsel early in a case can usually amend to add new issues without being blocked, even though amending restarts the resolution 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(c)(2)(E)(i)
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
ELITE ACADEMIC ACADEMY,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021060761
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021060366
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AUGUST 3, 2021
On July 30, 2021, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting Student’s motion to amend complaint. On August 2, 2021, Elite Academic Academy filed a motion for reconsideration. On August 3, 2021, Student 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
Elite’s motion is based upon OAH granting Student’s motion to amend on July 30, 2021, when Elite received the motion at 5:11 pm on July 28, 2021. Elite points out that OAH requires a party that disagrees with a motion to respond in writing within three business days. However, Elite failed to establish that, even if OAH had waited longer to receive its opposition brief, OAH should deny Student’s motion to amend.
Here, Student filed a motion to amend and first amended complaint more than five days before the due process hearing. Student’s amended complaint included new issues, which requires restarting the resolution process. Student’s amended complaint was filed after Student retained legal counsel, and little over a month after the filing of the initial complaint, thereby not causing undue delay in a resolution of this case. In sum, Student exercised his statutory right to amend his complaint in a timely manner and OAH properly granted the motion. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) Elite’s motion fails to show new facts, circumstances, or law that supports reconsideration of OAH’s Order.
ORDER
Elite Academic Academy has not established that OAH’s July 30, 2021 Order Granting Motion to Amend 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