California OAH special education order · September 17, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration; Order Denying Challenge for Cause
OAH Case No. 2024070763 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Parent's request to reconsider the denial of a challenge for cause against Division Chief ALJ Castillo because Parent repeated the same unsupported bias claims and offered no new facts or law.
Summary
Parent filed a challenge for cause to disqualify Division Chief ALJ Peter Paul Castillo. Parent claimed he was biased against families and was working with the district's law firm, Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost, to deny students their due process rights. OAH denied the challenge on August 13, 2024, and Parent then asked OAH to reconsider. OAH denied reconsideration because the motion repeated the same unsubstantiated claims and gave no new facts, circumstances, or law that were unavailable when Parent filed the original challenge. The district did not respond to either motion.
Why it matters
To get reconsideration, a party must show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, usually within about ten days. A bias challenge against an ALJ needs specific supporting evidence, not general accusations.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Peter Paul Castillo, Division Chief Administrative Law Judge (subject of the challenge for cause and signing ALJ)
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.
DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024070763
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE FOR CAUSE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024
On August 9, 2024, Parent on behalf of Student filed a challenge for cause, seeking to disqualify Division Chief Administrative Law Judge Peter Paul Castillo from hearing this case. Parent contended that Division Chief Castillo has a history of bias against parents and students in special education proceedings and is in cahoots with the law firm of Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost, which represents Del Mar Union School District, to deny all special education students and their parents their due process rights.
Del Mar Union School District did not file a response.
On August 13, 2024, the undersigned Division Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an order that denied Parent’s Motion to Recuse. On September 5, 2024, Parent on behalf of Student filed a motion that requested that the Office of Administrative Hearings, known as OAH, reconsider the order that denied the recusal for cause motion.
OAH did not receive a response from Del Mar Union School District.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
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.)
Parent’s Motion for Reconsideration consists of the same unsubstantiated claims against Division Chief Castillo and provides no additional facts or law that were not available to Parent in the August 9, 2024 motion.
ORDER
Parent on behalf of Student has not established the August 13, 2025 Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Peter Paul Castillo Division Chief Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings