California OAH special education order · April 8, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024030643 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider a partial insufficiency ruling, explaining that parties are not given three business days to respond to a notice of insufficiency and Student offered no new facts or law.
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its April 3, 2024 order finding Student's due process complaint partly sufficient and partly insufficient. Student argued OAH ruled on Walnut Creek's notice of insufficiency without giving him three business days to respond. OAH explained that its usual three-business-day response period for motions does not apply to notices of insufficiency, so no response was expected. Because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, OAH denied reconsideration and confirmed all dates.
Why it matters
Families should not expect a chance to respond before OAH rules on a district's notice of insufficiency. The faster fix for a complaint found partly insufficient is usually to amend it, not to seek reconsideration without new facts or law.
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.
WALNUT CREEK SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024030643
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
APRIL 8, 2024
On April 3, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order finding Student’s due process complaint partially sufficient and partially insufficient. On April 8, 2024, Student filed a request for reconsideration.
The Office of Administrative Hearings, called 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 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.)
Student claims OAH should not have ruled on Walnut Creek’s notice of insufficiency because he was not given three business days to respond to the notice of insufficiency. While OAH generally permits parties three business days to respond to motions, notices of insufficiency are an exception. Therefore, no response to Walnut Creek’s notice of insufficiency was expected from Student. Further, Student offers no new facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration.
Student has not established the April 3, 2024 Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings