California OAH special education order · March 3, 2025
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2024120465 · ALJ Claire Yazigi
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the dismissal of Issue One because Student only reargued the merits and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
On February 21, 2025, OAH granted Berkeley Unified School District's motion to dismiss Student's Issue One. Student asked for reconsideration four days later, and Berkeley opposed. OAH denied the request because Student's motion only argued again against the grounds for dismissal and did not present new or different facts, circumstances, or law. All hearing dates were confirmed, and the order notes that Student may still seek to file an amended complaint.
Why it matters
A reconsideration motion at OAH must bring something new, such as new facts, changed circumstances, or new law, not just a restatement of arguments the ALJ already rejected. When a claim is dismissed, asking to file an amended complaint is often the better path.
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.
BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024120465
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MARCH 3, 2025
On February 21, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order granting Berkeley Unified School District’s motion to dismiss Student’s Issue One. On February 25, 2025, Student filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 28, 2025, Berkeley Unified school District 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’s motion attempts to substantively address the grounds for dismissal of Student’s Issue One as set forth in the February 21, 2025, order, but offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration of the order.
ORDER
Student has not established the February 21, 2025, order should be reconsidered.
The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
Nothing in this order shall prevent Student from seeking to file an Amended Complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Claire Yazigi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings