California OAH special education order · December 1, 2025
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2025060065 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH denied Student's reconsideration request and kept the case dismissed for Parents' failure to attend a resolution session, because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its November 26, 2025 order. That order dismissed Student's complaint without prejudice because Parents did not attend a resolution session, and it denied Student's continuance requests as moot. OAH found the motion was timely, but it only repeated arguments the ALJ had already considered at the prehearing conference. Those arguments were that the grandfather's illness and death excused Parents' absence and that Respondents should have told OAH about it. OAH also found it had ruled on every pending motion, so the dismissal without prejudice was confirmed.
Why it matters
Reconsideration requires genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law; repeating arguments already made will not succeed. Parents who cannot attend a resolution session for family reasons should document why the reason is a valid excuse and raise it promptly, because the federal rules allow dismissal for failure to attend.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b)(4)
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.
ADELANTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DESERT MOUNTAIN
SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN AREA, AND DESERT
MOUNTAIN CHILDREN'S CENTER.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060065
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
DECEMBER 1, 2025
On November 26, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order following the November 24, 2025 prehearing conference, granting the Respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to attend a resolution session, and denying Student’s motions to continue as moot. On November 25, 2025, following the prehearing conference, but before the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, issued its written order, Student filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking to reopen Student’s case.
OAH did not receive a response from the Respondents.
APPLICABLE LAW
The 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.)
DISCUSSION
While Student filed his motion within a reasonable time after the initial Order was issued, Student offers no new facts, circumstances, or law to support reconsideration.
Student raised the arguments and facts included in Student’s motion during the prehearing conference, called a PHC. The Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, considered these during the PHC and when issuing the November 26, 2025 Order.
Student argued that his Parents should be excused from attending a resolution session due to ongoing health issues and eventual death of his grandfather. Student argued that Respondents had a duty to inform OAH of these facts, though Student had already done so. As explained in OAH’s November 26, 2025 Order, even if the Respondents had a duty to inform OAH of Student’s grandfather’s continued medical condition or death, that does little to support Student’s position. Student failed to prove that grandfather’s medical condition was a valid excuse for Student’s parents to not participate in a resolution session. Accordingly, the Respondents’ alleged failure to inform OAH of grandfather’s condition on Student’s behalf is inconsequential.
Student also asserted that OAH did not “review” several of Student’s pending motions. Student does not specifically identify any motion or motions he believes have not been adjudicated. Rather, Student asserts a general list of motion types Student believes have not been decided.
OAH has ruled on all pending motions. As explained in OAH’s November 26, 2025 Order, Student had two pending continuance requests, which were denied as moot following OAH’s granting of the Respondents’ motion to dismiss. Parents have also been given additional time to attend a resolution session, though the legal framework calls for dismissal for failure to attend. (34 C.F.R. §300.510(b)(4).) OAH has provided Parents with special assistance regarding grandfather’s medical issues. Overall, Student did not establish that November 26, 2025 Order should be reconsidered.
ORDER
1. Student did not establish that the November 26, 2025 Order should be
reconsidered.
2. The November 26, 2025 Order is confirmed.
3. Student’s complaint in this matter remains dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings