California OAH special education order · June 15, 2023

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2023010165 · ALJ Tara Doss

OAH denied Orcutt's request to reconsider the denial of its sanctions motion because Orcutt showed no new facts or law, and OAH lost jurisdiction once Student's case was dismissed.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

Orcutt asked OAH to reconsider a May 23, 2023 order. That order had denied Orcutt's motion for sanctions because OAH no longer had jurisdiction over the case. Orcutt relied on two older California appellate cases, Annino and Spinks, to argue it kept the right to seek sanctions after Student voluntarily dismissed the case during hearing, and Student opposed. OAH found Orcutt offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and neither case let OAH keep jurisdiction after dismissal. Student dismissed on the record on March 30, 2023, and OAH dismissed with prejudice on April 26, 2023, but Orcutt waited until May 18, 2023 to seek sanctions, so OAH no longer had jurisdiction.

Why it matters

A party that wants sanctions must file its motion before OAH formally dismisses the case. After dismissal with prejudice, OAH has no jurisdiction, and the only path left is review in court.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • Frank Annino & Sons Construction, Inc. v. McArthur Restaurants, Inc. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 353
  • Spinks v. Superior Court (1915) 26 Cal.App. 793

Topics

reconsideration sanctions jurisdiction voluntary dismissal timeliness

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:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

ORCUTT UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2023010165

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

JUNE 15, 2023

On May 23, 2023, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Orcutt Union School District’s motion for sanctions because the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, no longer has jurisdiction over this case. On June 2, 2023, Orcutt filed a motion for reconsideration. On June 5, 2023, Student filed an opposition.

Orcutt argues the Administrative Law Judge did not apply the appropriate law to the facts, which would have permitted OAH to rule upon the motion for sanctions. To support its argument, Orcutt cites two California appellate cases, Frank Annino & Sons Construction, Inc., etc., et al. v. McArthur Restaurants, Inc., et al. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 353, and Spinks v. Superior Court (1915) 26 Cal.App. 793. Annino upheld a trial court’s decision to allow a responding party who had been dismissed from the case to seek sanctions against the plaintiff. In Spinks, the trial court awarded court costs to the defendant after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case. However, the trail court refused to proceed on a contempt hearing after the plaintiff refused to pay the costs, on the grounds that it no longer had jurisdiction over the case. The appellate court disagreed and ordered the trial court to proceed with the contempt hearing. Relying on Annino and Spinks, Orcutt argues it should have retained its right to seek sanctions when Student voluntarily dismissed the case during the due process hearing.

Student argues the motion for reconsideration should be denied because Orcutt failed to present any new or different facts, circumstances, or law, to justify reconsideration. Further, Student argues Orcutt failed to cite any legal authority showing that OAH can grant a motion for sanctions after a case has been dismissed.

Finally, Student argues Annino and Spinks are not applicable to the present case because the case had not been dismissed in Annino, and Spinks did not involve sanctions.

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 10 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.)

RECONSIDERATION IS NOT WARRANTED

Orcutt did not establish that reconsideration of the May 23, 2023 Order Denying Motion for Sanctions is warranted. Orcutt did not raise any new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Instead, Orcutt raised two California appellate cases, both more than 30 years old, and neither of which offer legal authority that allows OAH to retain jurisdiction over a case after it is dismissed.

Student dismissed its case on the record during the due process hearing on March 30, 2023. OAH dismissed the case with prejudice on April 26, 2023. Nothing prevented Orcutt from filing its motion for sanctions within this timeframe. Instead, Orcutt waited until May 18, 2023, to file its motion. Consequently, OAH no longer had jurisdiction to rule on Orcutt’s motion. If Orcutt believes OAH has misapplied the law in denying the motion for sanctions, Orcutt may seek review with an appropriate court.

ORDER

Orcutt Union School District’s Motion for Reconsideration on OAH’s May 23, 2023 Order Denying Motion for Sanctions is denied.

Tara Doss Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings