California OAH special education order · March 6, 2025
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024010524 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH denied Student's motion to accept a late closing brief, treated as reconsideration, because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law that were unknown when the earlier extension request was filed.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified prevails on all 13 claims by a high-achieving autistic student; missing prior written notice found harmless. (2025)
Summary
OAH had denied Student's request for more time to file a closing brief. Student then filed a "Motion to Accept Closing Brief," which OAH treated as a motion to reconsider that denial. The District did not respond. OAH denied the motion because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and the facts Student raised were already known to Parent when Student filed the February 14, 2025 extension request.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law, not a second try with information that was available the first time. Parties should put every reason for an extension in the original request and meet closing-brief deadlines.
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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024010524
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARCH 6, 2025
On February 27, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Laurie Gorsline issued a February 26, 2025 Order Denying Student’s Request for An Extension to File Closing Brief.
On March 3, 2025, Student filed a “Motion to Accept Closing Brief,” which appears to be a motion for reconsideration of the February 26, 2025 Order. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Los Angeles Unified District.
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.)
Student offers no new facts, circumstances or law sufficient to support reconsideration of the prior order. The facts and circumstances raised in Student’s motion were clearly known to Parent at the time Student filed the February 14, 2025 request for an extension to file her closing brief.
Student has not established the February 26, 2025 Order should be reconsidered.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laurie Gorsline Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings