California OAH special education order · May 29, 2025
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2025041265 · ALJ Christine Arden
OAH denied Cupertino's request to reconsider its refusal to dismiss Student's issue two, because the district offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
This case went to decision
Student v. Cupertino Union School District: Cupertino Union had basis of knowledge about a TK student's disability, but no manifestation review was required; no remedy ordered. (2025)
Summary
Cupertino moved to dismiss all 13 issues in Student's expedited due process complaint, and the ALJ dismissed only issue one. Cupertino then asked OAH to reconsider keeping issue two. That issue alleges Student was informally removed from part of his school day for more than 10 school days because of his conduct, which Student says falls within OAH's jurisdiction under 20 U.S.C. section 1415(k). OAH denied reconsideration because Cupertino presented no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and it confirmed all hearing dates.
Why it matters
A party asking OAH to reconsider a ruling must bring something new, not simply repeat its earlier arguments. Claims that a student was informally removed from part of the school day for conduct can stay in an expedited hearing over a district's objection.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)
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.
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025041265
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
MAY 29, 2025
Student filed his due process hearing request, called the complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, on April 29, 2025, naming Cupertino Union School District, called Cupertino. OAH determined the complaint included an expedited issue, and set an expedited due process hearing.
On May 6, 2025, Cupertino filed a Motion to Dismiss all 13 issues in the complaint. Student filed an opposition to the motion. At the May 19, 2025 expedited prehearing conference, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called the ALJ, issued a verbal order partially granting Cupertino’s motion to dismiss only as to Student’s issue one. On May 27, 2025, OAH issued the Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, memorializing in writing the ALJ’s verbal ruling on Cupertino’s motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2025, Cupertino filed its Request for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issue Two of Petitioner’s Complaint, called the motion for reconsideration.
On June 2, 2025, Student filed an opposition to the motion for reconsideration.
Student’s opposition contends Cupertino’s motion for reconsideration failed to present any new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Student’s opposition also contends the complaint alleges Student was informally expelled or suspended from a portion of his school day for over 10 school days due to his conduct.
Student further contends OAH has jurisdiction over issue two, which addresses the removal of Student from a portion of his school day due to his conduct, pursuant to title 20 United States Code section 1415(k).
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 10 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.)
Reconsideration is not warranted because Cupertino’s motion for reconsideration offered no new facts, circumstances or law to justify or support reconsideration.
ORDER
Cupertino Union School District failed to establish that the ALJ’s May 19, 2025 verbal Order and the May 27, 2025 written Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction should be reconsidered. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Christine Arden Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings