California OAH special education order · December 16, 2024
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024090140, 2024060965 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of her motion to disqualify San Diego's counsel because the 'newly discovered' law already existed and could have been raised originally.
Summary
At a December 6, 2024 prehearing conference, OAH denied Student's motion to disqualify San Diego's counsel for alleged ethical violations, finding OAH lacked jurisdiction over that issue. Student asked OAH to reconsider, saying she had discovered additional law, and San Diego opposed. OAH denied reconsideration. The law Student cited existed and was readily available when she filed the original motion, and incomplete legal research is not a new fact, circumstance, or law that justifies reconsideration. All hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law. Legal authority that could have been found with diligent research before the original motion will not support a second try, so parties should research thoroughly the first time.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024090140
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024060965
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
DECEMBER 16, 2024
At a prehearing conference on December 6, 2024, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge denied Student's motion to disqualify San Diego's counsel for alleged ethical violations. The denial was based on OAH's lack of jurisdiction, and was confirmed in the Order Following Prehearing Conference issued on December 9, 2024.
On December 11, 2024, Student filed a motion for reconsideration. On December 12, 2024, San Diego filed an opposition.
APPLICABLE LAW
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 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 offers no new facts, circumstances or law. to support reconsideration.
She claims that she "has discovered additional and clarifying law" which "sheds new light" on the order described above. However, Student does not present any new law.
Instead, her moving papers show that she has recently discovered law that existed at the time and was readily available to counsel when her original motion was filed. In the exercise of due diligence, counsel could and should have presented the newly discovered law on the original motion. Counsel's incomplete legal research does not justify reconsideration.
ORDER
Student has not established that the Order of December 6, 2024, denying her motion to disqualify opposing counsel, should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings