California OAH special education order · October 12, 2021
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2021090389 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied San Juan's request to reconsider the denial of its motion to dismiss because the district offered no new facts or new law, and prior OAH rulings are not binding.
Summary
San Juan Unified School District asked OAH to reconsider a September 24, 2021 order that denied its motion to dismiss Student's complaint. Student opposed the request, and San Juan replied. OAH denied reconsideration because San Juan presented no new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Prior OAH decisions it relied on are persuasive at most, not binding precedent. All hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires new facts or new law, not a repeat of earlier arguments. Citing earlier OAH special education rulings will not force a different result because they are not precedential.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- Gov. Code, § 11425.60
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3085
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021090389
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
OCTOBER 12, 2021
On September 24, 2021, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying San Juan Unified School District’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 27, 2021, San Juan filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 24, 2021 order. Student filed an opposition on October 7, 2021 and San Juan replied on October 8, 2021
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings, called 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.)
San Juan has not established a basis for reconsideration of the previously issued order. New or different facts have not been provided. Nor has San Juan cited new law that mandates a change to the prior ruling. Prior OAH rulings are not precedential and while prior special education rulings may be considered as persuasive, they are not binding authority. (Govt Code § 11425.60; tit. 5, Cal. Code Regs., § 3085.) San Juan has offered no new authority establishing that dismissal is the appropriate remedy in these circumstances.
ORDER
The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings