California OAH special education order · October 16, 2024
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Reaffirming Order Granting Motion to Amend
OAH Case No. 2024080275 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH granted Old Adobe's reconsideration request so it could weigh the district's late-noticed opposition, but still let Student amend to add a post-filing issue. It was a first, timely amendment with no shown prejudice.
Summary
OAH granted Student's motion to amend the complaint, noting that Old Adobe had not opposed. Old Adobe had filed an opposition the same day and then asked OAH to reconsider. The district argued that adding an issue arising two months after the original filing would let claims grow without end, undercut the statute of limitations, and drag out the case. OAH considered the opposition and reaffirmed the amendment because it was Student's first, it was timely, it would not unduly prolong the case, and Old Adobe showed no prejudice.
Why it matters
Parents can usually add new disputes that arise after filing, such as a later IEP amendment, through a timely first amendment. A district's general complaint about delay will not block it without real prejudice.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
OLD ADOBE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024080275
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND REAFFIRMING ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
AMEND
OCTOBER 16, 2024
On August 7, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Old Adobe Union School District, referred to as Old Adobe. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. On October 8, 2024, Student filed a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request and an amended complaint.
On October 10, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting the motion to amend and stating that “No opposition was received from Old Adobe.”
On October 10, 2024, Old Adobe filed an opposition to the motion to amend. On October 16, 2024, Old Adobe filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking that its opposition be reviewed, and the October 10, 2024, order granting the motion to amend be reconsidered in light of that opposition.
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 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.)
The motion for reconsideration is granted such that Old Adobe’s opposition to the motion to amend shall be considered.
Old Adobe’s opposition argued that Student’s motion to amend seeks to add an issue that post-dates the original filing date of the complaint by two months. Old Adobe contends that Student should not be permitted to amend his complaint to include issues that “arise into perpetuity with every IEP amendment meeting that occurs following the filing of his original complaint.” Old Adobe further contends that allowing Student to continue adding each newly occurring concern to his original complaint negates the two-year statute of limitations and is prejudicial to the district in that it unnecessarily prolongs the matter without good cause.
On reconsideration, and in light of Old Adobe’s opposition having now been considered, no changes are warranted to the October 10, 2024, order granting motion to amend, which is reaffirmed. This is the first amendment and does not unduly prolong the proceedings. Old Adobe has not established any prejudice. The motion to amend was timely. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings