California OAH special education order · June 7, 2022
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2022050673 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider an earlier order denying stay put because Student identified no new facts or law. Not mentioning Student's reply brief in the original order was also not a ground for reconsideration.
Summary
On June 1, 2022, OAH denied Student's stay put request. Student moved for reconsideration on June 3, and Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District opposed. OAH denied the motion because Student did not identify any new or different facts, circumstances, or law. OAH also explained that the original order's failure to mention Student's reply brief was not a basis for reconsideration, since the reply had in fact been filed and considered.
Why it matters
A motion for reconsideration must point to new facts, circumstances, or law, and generally must be filed within about ten days. Re-arguing a stay put denial, or complaining that the order did not mention a brief, will not succeed.
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.
VALLEY CENTER-PAUMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022050673
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
JUNE 7, 2022
On June 1, 2022, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Student’s request for Stay Put. On June 3, 2022, Student filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On June 7, 2022, Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
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.)
Student has failed to identify any new facts, or new law justifying reconsideration of the previously issued order denying Stay Put. Nor does failing to acknowledge, in the original order, that Student’s reply brief was filed and considered, which it was, constitute a basis for a request for reconsideration. Student’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying Stay Put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings