California OAH special education order · May 14, 2025
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2025040745 · ALJ Daniel Senter
OAH denied Parent's request to reconsider the same-day denial of her last-minute hearing continuance motions because Parent offered no new facts, circumstances, or law, and the hearing went forward without her.
This case went to decision
Selma Unified School District v. Student: Selma Unified's psychoeducational assessment upheld; student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation at public expense. (2025)
Summary
On the fifth scheduled hearing day, Parent filed two motions to continue: one until the afternoon due to illness, and one for an unspecified time due to emotional and medical challenges involving her son. She appeared briefly, then left. Selma Unified opposed, and the ALJ denied both motions on the record because Parent showed no good cause for a continuance or for filing late. Parent then filed an objection to the hearing going on without her, which the ALJ treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied because it raised no new facts or law. The ALJ noted Parent could still attend and ask for extended or multiple breaks.
Why it matters
Filing a continuance request on the morning of hearing does not guarantee it will be granted, especially if it is brief and general. A parent who leaves the hearing risks it going forward without them, so it is better to stay, explain the need, and ask for accommodations such as breaks.
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:
SELMA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025040745
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MAY 14, 2025
On the morning of May 14, 2025, approximately one hour before the fifth calendared hearing day, and second to proceed, Parent filed a motion to continue with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, until the afternoon based on illness.
Approximately one hour later, Parent filed a second motion to continue the hearing for an unspecified period of time based on emotional and medical challenges regarding her son. Due to the delay between when a motion is filed with the OAH Secure File Transfer system and when it appears in the system, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, received Parent’s first motion approximately ten minutes prior to the commencement of hearing but did not receive the second motion before going on the record.
Parent briefly appeared at the hearing, and the ALJ notified Parent that he had received one motion and that he would address it. However, Parent left the hearing after about two minutes, prior to the undersigned hearing from Selma Unified before ruling on the motion. In its response to the motion, Selma Unified notified the undersigned ALJ that Parent had filed a second motion to continue. Selma Unified opposed both motions on the record. The undersigned took a short recess to locate the second motion and consider both motions.
Upon reconvening, Parent remained absent. The undersigned ALJ heard Selma Unified’s further opposition to Parent’s motions. The undersigned ALJ stated on the record that he would also have heard argument from Parent and solicited additional information from Parent, given the brevity and generality of both motions, had Parent remained present. The undersigned ALJ denied both motions on the record as good cause was not established to continue the hearing to the afternoon for the first motion or for an unspecified period of time for the second motion. Good cause was also not established as to the late filing of either motion. The hearing continued and Parent remained absent.
Subsequently, Parent filed a third document on May 14, 2025 titled: Objection to Hearing Without Parent. The undersigned ALJ reviewed this document during the lunch break on May 14, 2025 and addressed it on the record during the afternoon portion of the hearing. In this document, Parent contends she did not abandon the hearing and objects to it continuing in her absence. The undersigned ALJ deemed this a motion for reconsideration. Selma Unified reiterated its opposition to Parent’s motions on the record. Parent remained absent from the hearing. The undersigned ALJ denied Student’s motion for reconsideration as Parent provided no new facts or law warranting reconsideration. This written Order confirms the oral ruling of the undersigned ALJ made on May 14, 2025.
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.)
DISCUSSION
As set forth above, Parent offers no new facts, circumstances or law in its motion to support reconsideration. Parent was given the option to attend the hearing, but decided not to, which is her right on behalf of respondent. It is also noted that Parent drafted and filed the third document after leaving the hearing. As stated on the record by the undersigned ALJ, Parent is welcome to continue to attend the hearing and represent Student. The undersigned is willing to consider requests for extended or multiple breaks. However, as noted in the original ruling, good cause for the continuances was not established.
ORDER
Student has not established that the May 14, 2025 rulings denying Student’s motions to continue should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
The parties are on notice that simply filing a motion for continuance does not guarantee an outcome.
ORDER
All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel Senter Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings