California OAH special education order · April 11, 2025
Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration of Parties' Joint Request for Mediation and Continuance
OAH Case No. 2024090950 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of the parties' joint request for mediation and continuance because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
The day after OAH denied the parties' joint request for a second mediation and a continuance, Student asked OAH to reconsider. OAH denied the request without prejudice. It found that all the information Student offered was available when the original joint request was filed, and that a poorly made first motion is not a basis for reconsideration. OAH said the proper route is a new motion for mediation and continuance supported by good cause, and it confirmed all existing dates, including the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
Reconsideration is not a second chance to fix a weak motion. If a request for continuance is denied because it lacked support, file a new motion showing good cause rather than asking OAH to reconsider using information that was already available.
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.
REDONDO BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024090950
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF PARTIES’ JOINT REQUEST FOR
MEDIATION AND CONTINUANCE
APRIL 11, 2025
On April 10, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying the parties’ joint request for mediation and continuance. On April 11, 2025, Student filed a Request for Reconsideration Re Request for Second Mediation and Continuance of Due Process Hearing.
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.) Reconsideration is also dependent on the moving party’s diligence in presenting underlying facts or law in their initial motion and the party seeking reconsideration may 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, 1197-1200.)
DISCUSSION
Here, Student has not offered new or different facts, circumstances or law. All the information offered in Student’s Motion for Reconsideration was available to the parties at the time of filing of the initial request for mediation and continuance. The parties’ failure to make a proper motion initially is not the basis for substantive relief under reconsideration. The proper avenue for Student’s instant request would be a motion requesting mediation and continuance supported by good cause. As a result, Student’s motion for reconsideration is denied without prejudice.
ORDER
Student has not established the April 10, 2025 Order should be reconsidered.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
All dates set in this matter are confirmed, including the prehearing conference scheduled for Monday, April 11, 2025.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ted Mann Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings