California OAH special education order · March 28, 2023
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2023010786 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied Los Angeles's request to reconsider its own requested April 4 hearing date because the spring recess it cited was already known, and spring break alone is not good cause.
Summary
OAH had granted Los Angeles's continuance motion and set the hearing for April 4, 2023, the date Los Angeles itself requested. Los Angeles then asked OAH to reconsider and move the start date to April 11, 2023, because of a March 31 to April 7 spring recess. Student opposed. OAH denied the request because Los Angeles knew about the recess when it filed its first motion, and the existence of spring break does not show that any witness is unavailable or cannot be subpoenaed.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires new facts, circumstances, or law, not facts a party already knew. A school break by itself does not justify delaying a hearing without proof that specific witnesses are unavailable.
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 2023010786
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
March 28, 2023 On March 17, 2023, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Los Angeles Unified School District’s motion for a continuance. The Order granted Los Angeles its requested hearing start date of April 4, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Los Angeles filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a different hearing start date of April 11, 2023. On March 23, 2023, Student opposed. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied. The April 4, 2023 hearing start date remains as scheduled.
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.)
Los Angeles offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration.
Los Angeles bases its request on a spring recess from March 31, 2023-April 7, 2023, a fact that it knew at the time it made its original motion and which its motion specifically referenced when seeking the April 4 start date. As such, Los Angeles has not presented any new facts or law justifying reconsideration. Moreover, the existence of a spring break does not constitute good cause for a continuance as it does not in and of itself establish that any witnesses are unavailable nor unable to be subpoenaed for hearing.
ORDER
Los Angeles has not established the March 17, 2023 Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings