California OAH special education order · March 20, 2023
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2023020749 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Salinas Union's request to reconsider a ruling that Student's complaint was sufficiently pleaded, because the district offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
OAH had earlier ruled that Student's due process complaint was sufficiently pleaded, rejecting Salinas Union's notice of insufficiency. Salinas Union asked OAH to reconsider, arguing that the ALJ misread the facts and issues in the complaint and drew unreasonable inferences. OAH denied the motion. It found that the district offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. It also said that a claim that the ALJ misunderstood the complaint or misapplied the law is a reason to seek review, not reconsideration. All hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Reconsideration at OAH requires new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Simply rearguing that the judge got the sufficiency ruling wrong will not work, and parents' cases stay on schedule.
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.
SALINAS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023020749
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARCH 20, 2023
On March 10, 2023, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, issued an order finding Student’s due process hearing request, called a complaint, sufficiently pleaded. On May 17, 2023, Salinas Union High School District filed a motion for consideration of that ruling on its notice of insufficiency.
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 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.)
Salinas Union offers no new facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration. Instead, it argues that the ALJ incorrectly read the facts and issues alleged in the complaint and made unreasonable inferences in finding the complaint sufficiently pleaded.
The facts alleged in the complaint were considered in the original ruling, are not new, and do not support a request for reconsideration.
To the extent Salinas Union contends that the undersigned ALJ misunderstood the facts and issues alleged in the complaint or misapplied the law concerning the sufficiency of a complaint, that is not a basis for reconsideration, but for seeking review, if and to the extent available.
The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings