California OAH special education order · April 29, 2022

Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Rephrasing Issue 2 of the April 25, 2022, Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference

OAH Case No. 2021100329 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz

OAH granted Student's unopposed request to reconsider and rephrase Issue 2, removing a reference to Education Code section 56325(a)(2) that Student's second amended complaint never cited.

Granted Reconsideration

This case went to decision

Student v. Grossmont Union High School District: Grossmont Union prevails on all three claims; ALJ finds its Santana High special day class offer clear, comparable, and appropriate. (2022)

Summary

After the prehearing conference, the ALJ issued an order that rephrased Student's Issue 2 to cite Education Code section 56325, subdivision (a)(2). Student objected and asked for reconsideration, explaining that Student did not mean to bring the claim only under that section. Grossmont Union did not respond. The ALJ had invited reconsideration motions at the prehearing conference, so the ALJ granted the request and rephrased Issue 2 as a general comparable-program claim about the April 14 and May 12, 2021 IEP offers of general education courses, while reminding Student to bring the supporting legal authorities to the start of the hearing.

Why it matters

Parents should read the ALJ's restated issues after a prehearing conference closely and quickly ask for corrections if the wording narrows their claims. Even when OAH agrees, the student must still be ready to show the legal basis for the claim at hearing.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • Ed. Code, § 56325, subd. (a)(2)

Topics

reconsideration prehearing conference issue framing comparable program transfer student

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.

GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2021100329

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND REPHRASING ISSUE 2 OF THE APRIL 25, 2022, ORDER

FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR HEARING BY

VIDEOCONFERENCE

APRIL 29, 2022

On April 25, 2022, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order at the prehearing conference setting forth the issues to be decided at hearing, which are listed in the April 25, 2022, Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference. On April 29, 2022, Parents on behalf of Student filed an objection to the ALJ’s rephrasing of Student’s Issue 2 as plead in Student’s second amended complaint. Student requests reconsideration of Issue 2 as written in the April 25, 2022, Order. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Grossmont Union High School District.

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

In effort to clarify the issues for hearing, without limiting or expanding the claims raised in Student’s second amended complaint, the ALJ indicated at the April 25, 2022 prehearing conference that the parties may file a motion for reconsideration of the issues as clarified by the ALJ and the parties, and written by the ALJ. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is granted.

Student requests that Issue 2 be rephrased to remove reference to Education Code section 56325, subdivision (a)(2), as Student did not intend to raise that claim solely under section 56325, subdivision (a)(2). Issue 2 of Student’s second amended complaint did not specifically reference Education Code section 56325, subdivision (a)(2). Upon reconsideration, the ALJ grants Student’s request to rephrase Student’s Issue 2. Issue 2 shall read:

Did Grossmont Union deny Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, by failing to offer Student a comparable program, by offering Student general education courses at the April 14, and May 12, 2021, IEP team meetings? Student carries the burden of persuasion as to the issues to be decided at hearing and must demonstrate the applicability of legal authorities Student intends to rely on to support Student’s contentions. Student must be prepared to provide the ALJ at the start of the hearing, the legal authorities Student intends to rely on to support Student’s Issue 2 contention.

ORDER

On reconsideration, Issue 2 of the April 25, 2022, Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference is rephrased as stated above. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings