California OAH special education order · December 6, 2021
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2021110404 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider a stay put order because Student filed almost two weeks later and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, only the same arguments.
Summary
On November 22, 2021, OAH ruled that limited-duration compensatory services Los Angeles offered in Student's last IEP were not part of Student's educational program for stay put purposes. On December 3, 2021, Student asked OAH to reconsider, arguing the judge was mistaken; Los Angeles did not respond. OAH denied the motion because Student waited almost two weeks and repeated the same arguments and information without new facts, circumstances, or law. A claim that the judge misapplied the law is a basis for seeking review, not reconsideration.
Why it matters
Reconsideration at OAH requires new or different facts, circumstances, or law, filed promptly (generally within ten days). Simply arguing the judge got it wrong will fail; that argument belongs in an appeal or review, if one is available. The underlying ruling also signals that time-limited compensatory services in an IEP may not count as stay put.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021110404
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
DECEMBER 6, 2021
On November 22, 2021, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order finding that Los Angeles Unified School District had offered compensatory services for a limited duration in Student’s last individualized education program, called an IEP, which were not a part of Student’s educational program for purposes of stay put.
On December 3, 2021, Student filed a motion for reconsideration, essentially arguing that the judge was mistaken. The Office of Administrative Hearings has not received a response from Los Angeles.
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.)
Student waited almost two weeks to file a reconsideration motion, and provides no new facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration. Rather, Student offers the same argument with the same information contained in the original motion.
Student contends that the undersigned ALJ misapplied the law concerning stay put, which is not a basis for reconsideration, but for seeking review, if and to the extent available.
Student provides no basis for reconsideration of the November 22, 2021 Order.
Accordingly, Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings