California OAH special education order · April 5, 2023
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Denying Motion to Vacate Prior Orders
OAH Case No. 2023030085 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH reconsidered but again denied Student's motion to vacate prior orders, finding that rescheduling and consolidation cured or mooted any defect in electronic service on Parent.
Summary
Student argued that OAH improperly served Parent electronically without written consent and asked OAH to vacate its prior orders. When OAH denied that request, Student sought reconsideration, saying the earlier filing was not meant as a motion to vacate and lacked the supporting authority and declarations Student intended to rely on. Healdsburg Unified did not respond. OAH granted reconsideration but again denied the motion to vacate. It found that the prehearing conference and hearing had been rescheduled, which was the relief Student had asked for. It also found that consolidation with Student's case and a new scheduling order cured or mooted any service defect.
Why it matters
A parent who was not properly served may get little relief once OAH reschedules the hearing, because OAH treats new dates and new notices as curing the service problem. Parents should give written consent before agreeing to electronic service and should raise service problems early.
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:
HEALDSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
V.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023030085
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DENYING MOTION TO VACATE PRIOR ORDERS
APRIL 5, 2023
On March 15, 2023, Student’s attorney filed a notice of representation and a request for continuance of the March 21, 2023 hearing. In the papers, Student claimed that the Office of Administrative Hearing, called OAH, improperly served Parent electronically without written consent. Student also requested that all prior OAH orders be vacated.
On March 22, 2022, OAH denied the motion to vacate on the grounds that any defect in service had been cured because the matter was continued to dates in April 2023, specifically April 7, 2023 for the prehearing conference and April 18 through 20, 2023 for the due process hearing.
On March 24, 2023, Student filed a Motion to Vacate OAH’s prior orders, claiming that Student’s prior filing was not a motion to vacate the prior orders and that the Administrative Law Judge misunderstood the prior filing. Student again argues that OAH improperly served Parent because Parent never agreed to electronic service. OAH did not receive a response from Healdsburg Unified.
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.)
DISCUSSION
Student offers new facts, circumstances, or law. to support reconsideration.
Specifically, Student claims that the prior filing was not intended as a motion to vacate the prior filings and that it did not contain the supporting authority and declarations Student intended to rely upon. The motion for reconsideration is granted.
ORDER
On reconsideration, the motion to vacate the prior OAH orders is denied.
Although OAH held the prehearing conference on March 13, 2023, OAH subsequently continued the prehearing conference and due process hearing to new dates in April 2023. In other words, both the prehearing conference and due process hearing were rescheduled to new dates after the prehearing conference order was issued. This was exactly the relief Student sought on March 15, 2023, when it asked that the March 21, 2023 hearing be continued. Student fails to demonstrate how this rescheduling did not cure any alleged defect in the prior service of the scheduling order or the prehearing conference order.
In addition, OAH is concurrently issuing an order granting Student’s request for consolidation such that the hearing in this case, OAH Case No. 2023030085, called District’s Case, is now scheduled on the dates in Student’s Case, OAH Case No.
2023040107. An entirely new Scheduling Order has also been sent to the parties in
Student’s Case setting the prehearing conference for May 15, 2023, and the due process hearing for May 23 through 25, 2023. As such, any alleged defect in service of the prior OAH orders in District’s Case was cured or is otherwise moot. The motion to vacate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laurie Gorsline Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings