California OAH special education order · June 7, 2023

Order Denying Request for Reconsideration of Denials of Second Mediation and Second Continuance

OAH Case No. 2023020121 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl

OAH denied the parties' joint request to reconsider its denial of a second mediation and a nearly four-month continuance because they offered no new facts, law, or specific good cause.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

OAH had already denied a joint motion for a second mediation in August and a hearing continuance to late September. The parties then filed a joint motion asking for the same dates again. OAH treated it as a request for reconsideration and denied it. The parties offered no new facts or law, identified no conflicts with the current hearing dates, gave no evidence that witnesses were unavailable, and did not explain why the earlier mediation failed to address the amended complaint. The ALJ stressed that this high school student had already gone most of a school year without his educational program being resolved, so a nearly eight-month delay required specific evidence of good cause. All prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.

Why it matters

Even when both sides agree, OAH will not grant a long continuance or a second mediation just because the parties want more time to settle. A request needs specific good cause, such as witness unavailability or calendar conflicts, especially when the student's program is going unresolved. A request for reconsideration must offer new facts or law, not simply repeat the earlier request.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)

Topics

reconsideration continuance second mediation good cause joint motion hearing delay

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.

MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2023020121

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF

DENIALS OF SECOND MEDIATION AND SECOND

CONTINUANCE

JUNE 7, 2023

On February 3, 2023, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Manhattan Beach Unified School District as respondent. On March 8, 2023, the parties’ joint requests for mediation and continuance were granted. The case was scheduled for hearing beginning May 23, 2023.

On May 11, 2023, Student’s Motion to Amend the complaint was granted and timelines were reset. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).) The hearing in this matter was scheduled for June 27, 2023. On June 1, 2023, the parties jointly filed a motion seeking a second mediation, two months from the request, and a further, nearly four-month continuance of the hearing. That motion, filed as though it was a first request for continuance, without any statement of good cause for the extensive continuance sought, was denied on June 1, 2023.

On June 6, 2023, the parties jointly filed another joint motion for mediation and continuance. This motion sought the same mediation and hearing dates previously denied, and failed to offer any new facts or law justifying the lengthy third change to the hearing date. The parties’ stipulation to a desire to hold a second mediation, to allow themselves more time to discuss settlement, and continue the hearing are not good cause for either a second mediation or a continuance of the length requested. No reason was offered for the lengthy hearing continuance requested.

RECONSIDERATION

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.)

Here no new facts or law are offered to justify the same request made previously.

The parties seek the same dates denied in the prior order, specifically, to schedule a second mediation in August and a hearing the last week of September. No conflicts with the currently scheduled hearing dates are identified. No evidence of witness unavailability is offered. No explanation for why the mediation previously held did not address issues in the amended complaint filed immediately following that mediation.

Instead, the parties simply reiterate, in a drafted motion, as opposed to OAH’s form, all of the same requests.

As previously noted, this case was filed in February of 2023. This high school student has already gone most of an entire school year without resolution of his educational program. A nearly eight-month delay between filing and hearing for this student requires specific evidence, of good cause.

The request is denied. All prehearing conference and due process hearing dates are confirmed and will proceed as calendared.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings