California OAH special education order · July 9, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024020817 · ALJ Linda Dowd
OAH denied Student's request to keep the original hearing dates after amending the complaint, because an amended complaint restarts the timelines, including the mandatory 30-day resolution period.
Summary
After OAH granted Student's motion to amend the complaint and issued new hearing dates, Student asked OAH to reconsider and keep the earlier dates: a July 12, 2024 prehearing conference and a July 23, 2024 hearing. Los Angeles Unified did not respond. OAH found the motion was timely but offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. The old dates did not leave time for the mandatory 30-day resolution session, which restarts when a complaint is amended. The district's silence on the motion to amend did not mean it agreed to waive the resolution session, so all newly set dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Amending a due process complaint resets the hearing timeline, including the 30-day resolution period, so families should expect delay unless the district expressly agrees in writing to waive the resolution session. A district's failure to object is not a waiver.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)
- 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 2024020817
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
JULY 9, 2024
On July 3, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Granting Student’s Motion to Amend Complaint. As a result of granting Student’s motion to amend, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, reset the applicable timelines and issued a new Scheduling Order. On July 8, 2024, Student filed a motion to reconsider the dates in the Order Granting Student’s Motion to Amend. Los Angeles Unified School District did not respond to Student’s motion.
OAH 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’s motion was timely filed, however, offers no new facts, circumstances, or law, to support reconsideration. Student’s motion to amend included a request to maintain the dates Student and Los Angeles Unified requested in their joint request for a continuance that OAH granted on March 26, 2024. Specifically, a prehearing conference on July 12, 2024, and a due process hearing starting on July 23, 2024.
The dates OAH previously granted do not allow sufficient time for the mandatory 30-day resolution session. The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).) This includes time for the resolution session. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B).) Student’s argument that Los Angeles Unified did not object to Student’s motion to amend is not persuasive. Los Angeles Unified did not respond to Student’s motion to amend. A lack of response is not the same as agreeing to waive the resolution session.
Student has not established the July 3, 2024, Order Granting Student’s Motion to Amend Complaint should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Linda Dowd Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings