California OAH special education order · July 11, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024020642 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied La Mesa's motion to reconsider a two-week hearing continuance granted to Student because the district raised no new facts, circumstances, or law and only repeated its earlier arguments.
Summary
At the prehearing conference, OAH granted Student's motion to continue the due process hearing for two weeks. La Mesa asked OAH to reconsider, arguing again that Student misstated facts, changed the reason for the continuance, and failed to show good cause, and adding that rescheduling witnesses would be inconvenient. Student did not respond. OAH denied the motion because the arguments had already been considered and were not new, and said a claim that the judge misapplied the law is a matter for review, not reconsideration.
Why it matters
A reconsideration motion must present new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Repeating arguments the judge already rejected, or saying the judge got the law wrong, will not work. Inconvenience in rescheduling witnesses alone will not undo a granted continuance.
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.
LA MESA-SPRING VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024020642
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
JULY 11, 2024
On July 8, 2024 at the prehearing conference, and by written Order issued July 9, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge granted Student’s motion to continue and continued the hearing for two weeks. On July 9, 2024, La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, called La Mesa, filed a motion for reconsideration. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Student.
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 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.)
La Mesa’s motion for reconsideration alleges no new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the request reconsideration, other than an unsupported argument that it will be inconvenient for La Mesa to reschedule witnesses. The motion repeats the same arguments La Mesa made at the prehearing conference, essentially that Student misstated facts in the original motion, changed the basis for seeking a continuance at the prehearing conference, and failed to demonstrate good cause for a two-week continuance.
The information contained in La Mesa’s motion for reconsideration is not new, was considered in the original ruling, and does not support a request for reconsideration.
To the extent La Mesa contends that the undersigned ALJ misapplied the law concerning the continuance of a due process hearing, that is not a basis for reconsideration, but for seeking review if and to the extent available.
For the reasons stated above, La Meas’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings