California OAH special education order · May 25, 2023
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Reaffirming Ruling
OAH Case No. 2023040563, 2023030599, 2023050798 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH reconsidered its denial of Student's motion to consolidate a second case but kept the denial, because Riverside did not address the timeline confusion or the option of amending Student's first complaint.
Summary
Student filed a second due process complaint and moved to consolidate it with two already-consolidated cases. OAH denied that motion on May 24, 2023. Riverside asked for reconsideration because OAH had not seen its non-opposition when it ruled. OAH granted reconsideration on that ground but reaffirmed the denial. Riverside did not address the confusion that two different timelines and statute of limitations calculations would cause, or the fact that Student could reach the same result by amending his first complaint.
Why it matters
Even when no one opposes consolidation, OAH may refuse it if the cases would have different timelines and amending the existing complaint is a simpler path. A request for reconsideration must answer the specific reasons behind the original ruling.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023040563
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023030599
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023050798
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND REAFFIRMING RULING
MAY 25, 2023
On March 17, 2023, Riverside filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2023030599, Riverside’s Case, naming Student. On April 17, 2023, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH Case Number 2023040563, Student’s First Case, naming Riverside. On April 21,2023, OAH consolidated Riverside’s Case and Student’s First Case, designated Student’s First Case as the primary case, and adopted the timeline in Student’s First Case as the timeline governing both cases.
On May 17, 2023, Student filed a second Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH Case Number 2023050798, Student’s Second Case, naming Riverside. Also on May 17, 2023, Student filed a motion to consolidate his Second Case with Riverside’s Case and Student’s First Case. On May 24, 2023, the undersigned issued an order denying the second motion to consolidate. On May 25, 2023, Riverside filed a motion to reconsider that denial.
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
Riverside correctly contends that OAH did not have before it the District’s non- opposition to the second motion to consolidate when it issued the May 24, 2023 ruling.
The motion for reconsideration is granted.
On reconsideration, however, the ruling is affirmed. Riverside’s motion to reconsider does not address either of the grounds on which the order being reconsidered was granted. It does not address the potential confusion inherent in having two different timelines and statute of limitations calculations for the two cases brought by Student, nor does it mention the fact that Student can accomplish his purpose by amending his complaint, which would eliminate the dangers of duplication and waste that Riverside perceives. Riverside offers no persuasive reason why the ruling was incorrect.
All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings