California OAH special education order · June 25, 2024
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024010812 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH granted San Marcos's request to reconsider a stay put order because the attached October 2022 IEP differed from the sworn declaration the stay put order relied on.
Summary
On June 21, 2024, OAH granted Student's stay put motion, which San Marcos had not opposed. Four days later, San Marcos asked OAH to reconsider. San Marcos argued that the October 20, 2022 IEP attached to the motion differed in certain ways from what the sworn declaration said it contained. OAH found these were new facts that justified reconsideration, even though San Marcos never opposed the original motion, and said it would issue an amended stay put order at the same time.
Why it matters
A stay put order resting on a declaration can be revisited if the underlying IEP says something different. Parents should make sure declarations describe the last agreed-upon IEP exactly, and a district that failed to oppose may still get a second look.
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.
SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024010812
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
JUNE 25, 2024
On June 21, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting stay put. On June 25, 2024, San Marcos Unified School District filed a motion for reconsideration.
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 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.)
DISCUSSION
The Order for Stay Put relied on facts as stated in a sworn declaration submitted with the motion, which at the time San Marcos did not oppose, concerning the contents of an individualized education program, called an IEP, dated October 20, 2022. San Marcos now contends that the contents of the IEP, which was attached to the original motion, differs in certain respects from the facts that were stated in the sworn declaration. San Marcos has thus presented new facts, circumstances or law, to support reconsideration, although San Marcos did not oppose the original motion. The motion for reconsideration is granted.
ORDER
On reconsideration, an amended Order Granting Stay will be issued under separate cover, concurrent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings