California OAH special education order · May 13, 2025
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025040955 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider an order finding the complaint only partially sufficient, because the earlier order reviewed the whole complaint and Student offered no new facts or law.
Summary
Student moved to vacate an April 29, 2025 order that found Student's due process complaint only partially sufficient. Student argued the ALJ had relied only on Mill Valley Unified's Notice of Insufficiency. OAH treated the motion as a request for reconsideration, and Mill Valley Unified opposed it. OAH denied the request because the earlier order had considered the entire complaint, including the 32-page Statement of Facts and Exhibits A through G, and Student presented no new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
Why it matters
A motion to undo a sufficiency ruling must show new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Disagreeing with the ALJ's reasoning is not enough. Usually the better path is to amend the complaint to fix the issues found insufficient.
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.
MILL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025040955
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE APRIL 29, 2025 ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT
MAY 13, 2025
On April 29, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called ALJ, issued an order determining Student’s due process hearing request partially sufficient, referred to as the April 29, 2025 Order. A due process hearing request is called a complaint.
On May 7, 2025, Parents on behalf of Student filed a Motion to Vacate Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient and Notice of Insufficiency.
Student’s moves to vacate the April 29, 2025 Order because Student contends the undersigned ALJ relied solely on the representations made by Mill Valley Unified in its Notice of Insufficiency in determining Student’s complaint partially sufficient. The Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, considers Student’s motion as a motion for reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Order. On May 7, 2025, Mill Valley Unified filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
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 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 failed to establish the April 29, 2025 Order should be reconsidered. In determining Student’s complaint partially sufficient, the April 29, 2025 Order was not limited to considering only the assertations made by Mills Valley Unified in its Notice of Insufficiency. Instead, the April 29, 2025 Order considered and discussed the entire complaint filed by Student on April 21, 2025, including the 32-page Statement of Facts, and the supporting documents identified as Exhibits A through G.
Student failed to offer any new or different facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration of the April 29, 2025 Order. Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings