California OAH special education order · April 24, 2023
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2023030308 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Walnut Creek's request to reconsider a ruling that Student's amended complaint was sufficiently pleaded, because the District offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
Walnut Creek School District asked OAH to reconsider an April 11, 2023 order finding Student's amended complaint sufficiently pleaded. The District argued again that Student's allegations of an exception to the statute of limitations should be found insufficient because other alleged facts seemed to contradict them. The ALJ denied the motion because the District presented no new facts, circumstances, or law. A claim that the ALJ misread the complaint or misapplied the law is a reason to seek review, not reconsideration. All dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Reconsideration is not a second chance to repeat arguments OAH already rejected; it requires new facts, circumstances, or law. Parents whose complaints plead a statute-of-limitations exception can survive a sufficiency challenge even if the district says other facts point the other way.
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.
WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023030308
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
APRIL 24, 2023
On April 11, 2023, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, issued an order finding Student’s amended due process hearing request, called an amended complaint, sufficiently pleaded. On April 14, 2023, Walnut Creek School District filed a motion for reconsideration 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.)
Walnut Creek 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 amended complaint and disregarded relevant authority in finding the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded. Walnut Creek argued originally, and argues again, that Student’s allegations regarding an exception to the statute of limitations should be deemed insufficient because other alleged facts appear to be contrary.
The facts alleged in the complaint and relevant authority were considered in the original ruling, are not new, and do not support a request for reconsideration.
To the extent Walnut Creek contends that the undersigned ALJ misunderstood the facts and issues alleged in the amended 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