California OAH special education order · August 30, 2023
Order, Nunc Pro Tunc, Filing Student's Closing Brief
OAH Case No. 2023050319 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH accepted Student's closing brief nunc pro tunc after the decision issued. The brief was filed on time but under the wrong case number, and accepting it avoided prejudice to Student.
This case went to decision
Student v. Yuba City Unified School District: Yuba City Unified prevails on all claims involving COVID-era distance learning, aide, therapy services, ESY, and IEP predetermination. (2023)
Summary
After OAH issued its decision, Student moved for reconsideration or to reopen the record, saying her timely closing brief had not been considered. The ALJ found that Student's counsel filed the brief on time but put the wrong case number on it, so it landed in another case's docket. Counsel also did not fix the error after OAH notified her. Despite multiple errors in the motion, OAH deemed the brief filed as of July 31, 2023, in the correct case, to avoid prejudice to Student, and said an amended decision will issue. The ALJ warned counsel not to expect the same leniency in the future.
Why it matters
A clerical mistake such as a wrong case number can keep a closing brief from reaching the ALJ. Here OAH fixed the problem to protect Student, but it warned that it will not always reopen the record for counsel's errors, so parents and advocates should double-check every filing.
Key authority cited
- Young v. Gardner-Denver Co. (1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 915
- Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d)
People named in the order
- Sheila Bayne, Student's attorney
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.
YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023050319
ORDER, NUNC PRO TUNC, FILING
STUDENT’S CLOSING BRIEF
AUGUST 30, 2023
On June 27, 28 and 29, Administrative Law Judge Penelope Pahl, held a hearing in this case. At the conclusion of the testimony, the parties requested a continuance to file closing briefs. The record was held open to July 31, 2023, at 3:00 PM, for brief filing.
Yuba City Unified School District filed a timely closing brief. No closing brief was received from Student in this case. On August 21, 2023, OAH issued the Decision.
On August 24, 2023, Student filed a “Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative to Reopen the Administrative Record.” Student’s motion asserted she had filed a timely closing brief that had not been considered, prejudicing Student. Yuba City did not file a response to the motion.
Student filed a closing brief on July 31, 2023, with the wrong case number on both the face of the brief and the accompanying proof of service. The brief was, therefore, placed in the wrong case docket. On August 1, 2023, the case manager, for the case designated on the brief, notified the attorney who signed the brief, Sheila Bayne, that she had filed the brief in a closed case. Student’s counsel did not refile the brief with the correct case number or contact OAH regarding the mislabeled document.
As the brief did not get filed in the correct docket, the undersigned did not know a closing brief had been filed. Student’s motion is considered in light of these facts.
Courts have inherent power to enter judgments, nunc pro tunc, so they relate back to the time when they should have been entered. A nunc pro tunc judgement is allowed for the purposes of preserving the rights of litigants. Nunc pro tunc judgments are allowed, or refused, as justice may require in view of the circumstances of a particular case. (Young v. Gardiner-Denver Co. (1966) 244 Cal. App 2d 915, 919; see, Ca.
Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (d).)
In this case, this order is entered despite the multiple and continued errors on the part of Student’s counsel. Here, Student’s motion:
• fails to cite the correct statute on which relief should be sought, instead
citing to the standard for reconsideration of an order on a pre-hearing motion;
• moves to reopen the administrative record to “hear Student’s opening
statement,” despite the rest of the motion requesting that Student’s closing brief be considered;
• still fails to correct the case number on the closing brief; and
• fails to acknowledge that the reason the closing brief was not considered
initially was due to Student’s counsel’s document error.
Despite the collection of errors in Student’s motion, in this instance an order is entered nunc pro tunc to accept the filing of Student’s closing brief. This order is entered on the grounds that OAH had received a timely brief, albeit with an inaccurate case number; and that brief did not make it to the attention of the hearing ALJ. This order is entered to allow the ALJ to consider Student’s closing arguments to avoid any possible prejudice to this Student.
The document titled “Petitioner’s Closing Brief” erroneously designated OAH case number 2023020646, shall be considered filed as of July 31, 2023, at 2:18 PM in case number 2023050319. Student’s counsel should not presume future briefs that are inaccurately numbered, misstate her requests, or fail to cite supporting authority will result in a reopening of the administrative record. Following consideration of the brief, an amended decision will be issued.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings