California OAH special education order · May 4, 2023
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration, Granting Request for Mediation and Denying the Scheduling of Mediation on Date Specified
OAH Case No. 2023020620 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH granted the parties' joint reconsideration request and allowed a third mediation date because new declarations explained the two prior cancellations, but refused the May 5 date and warned there would be no fourth.
Summary
OAH had denied the parties' joint request for a third mediation date because the request did not explain why two earlier mediations were cancelled. The parties jointly asked for reconsideration. They filed declarations stating that the first date was cancelled because a district administrator was unavailable and the second because of a family emergency that morning. The ALJ granted reconsideration and a third mediation date, but not on May 5, 2023. The parties were asked to propose two alternate dates of May 9 or later, and the ALJ warned that no further mediation would be scheduled absent extraordinary circumstances.
Why it matters
When asking OAH to reschedule mediation after cancellations, include sworn explanations for each cancellation in the first request, because OAH may deny an unexplained request and will not routinely give a second chance. Repeated cancellations can cost a family the chance to mediate at all.
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.
BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023020620
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION,
GRANTING REQUEST FOR MEDIATION AND DENYING THE
SCHEDULING OF MEDIATION ON DATE SPECIFIED
MAY 4, 2023
On May 3, 2023, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying the parties joint request for a third mediation date without explanation following two prior cancellations. On May 4, 2023, the parties jointly filed a request 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.)
The parties offer new facts, in support of their request for reconsideration.
Counsel for Chula Vista offered a declaration stating that the first mediation date was cancelled because the district administrator scheduled to appear discovered he was not available for the first date scheduled. Student offered a declaration stating he was told by Parents that a family emergency had arisen on the morning of the second date scheduled for mediation. The fact that this information should have been provided with the request for a third mediation date is being overlooked in this instance. The parties should not rely on being offered reconsideration in the future for failure to include all necessary information with their moving papers in the first instance. The motion for reconsideration is granted.
RECONSIDERATION
On reconsideration, the parties’ request to schedule a third mediation date is granted. However, mediation is not available on May 5, 2023. The parties are encouraged to submit two alternate dates on which participants are available that occur May 9, 2020 or after. No further mediation dates will be scheduled if this one is cancelled, absent specific evidence of extraordinary circumstances. The prehearing conference and hearing dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings