California OAH special education order · May 29, 2025

Order Denying Request for Clarification and Reconsideration

OAH Case No. 2025020643 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly

OAH denied Parent's request to clarify or reconsider the denial of her motion to amend. The request was untimely and raised no new facts or law, and Parent holds no educational rights for the adult Student.

Denied Reconsideration

Summary

Parent asked OAH to clarify or reconsider its May 5, 2025, order denying a motion to amend the complaint to add herself as a petitioner, and Long Beach opposed. OAH found the motion untimely because it was filed 14 days after the order without a reasonable explanation. OAH also found Parent raised no new facts, circumstances, or law. Student has reached adulthood, has not assigned his educational rights to Parent, and is not conserved, and Parent's attorneys do not represent him, so Parent cannot amend his complaint. OAH said Parent may file her own complaint seeking reimbursement, or Student may amend with a declaration showing he intends to add her.

Why it matters

Once a student turns 18, a parent without assigned educational rights or a conservatorship cannot control the student's case. A parent seeking reimbursement for pre-majority expenses should file her own complaint or be added by the student through his own attorney. Reconsideration requests should be filed within about ten days.

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

  • Madeline Knutson, Attorney for Parent
  • Timothy A. Adams, Attorney who filed the complaint on Student's behalf

Topics

reconsideration adult student educational rights amend complaint parent standing reimbursement timeliness

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:

STUDENT,

v.

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2025020643

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION AND

RECONSIDERATION

MAY 29, 2025

On May 5, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Student’s motion to amend complaint. On May 19, 2025, Parent filed a motion for clarification and reconsideration. On May 21, 2025, Long Beach Unified School District, called Long Beach, filed an opposition.

The Office of Administrative Hearings, called 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, 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.)

The motion was not filed within a reasonable time after the initial order was issued on May 5, 2025. Parent did not establish a reasonable basis for filing the motion for reconsideration 14-days thereafter on May 19, 2025.

Further, Parent did not establish that clarification or reconsideration of the May 5, 2025, order denying Student’s motion to amend is warranted. Parent did not raise any new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Parent argues OAH’s April 9, 2025, order denying Long Beach’s motion to dismiss the complaint authorizes her to file an amended complaint adding herself as petitioner. OAH’s April 9, 2025, order determined it was unclear based on the complaint whether attorney Madeline Knutson and her office represents only Parent, or Parent and Student. The complaint was filed by Student through his attorneys Timothy A. Adams and associates, indicating an attorney-client relationship between Student and Knutson and her office.

On that basis, OAH denied Long Beach’s motion to dismiss the complaint and confirmed the matter would proceed with Student as the sole petitioner. In the event the complaint was intended to be filed by Parent, Student could file an amended complaint adding Parent as a petitioner.

Parent does not argue that Student assigned his educational rights to Parent or is conserved. Knutson and her office do not purport to represent Student. Parent’s motion cites no legal authority authorizing Parent to amend the complaint on Student’s behalf where she does not hold Student’s educational rights or is not acting as his conservator, and where her attorneys do not represent Student.

Parent’s argument that OAH’s scheduling order and subsequent orders reference Parent in the caption is not persuasive or determinative of this issue. The petitioner, not OAH, is responsible for naming the correct party. Here, the complaint identifies Student as the sole petitioner. Parent may file a separate complaint asserting her claim for reimbursement of educational expenses incurred on Student’s behalf before he reached the age of majority. Alternatively, Student may amend the complaint to add Parent as a petitioner consistent with OAH’s April 9, 2025, order. Any motion to amend the complaint shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury by Student or his attorney of record reflecting Student’s intention to amend the complaint. Any declaration filed by Student’s attorney of record shall confirm they are authorized to represent Student in this matter.

ORDER

Parent has not established the May 5, 2025, order should be clarified or reconsidered. The motion for clarification or reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed and shall proceed as to Student.

Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings