California OAH special education order · July 2, 2025
Order Granting in Part Student's Motion for Reconsideration and Correcting the June 23, 2025 Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2025060277 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH corrected a clerical error that wrongly listed Issue 4 as insufficient but refused to revisit its rulings on Issues 2, 3c, 3d, and pre-June 6, 2023 claims, finding no new facts or law.
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider a June 23, 2025 order finding Issues 2, 3c, and 3d, and claims before June 6, 2023, insufficiently pleaded, and to fix the order's listing of Issue 4 as insufficient. Petaluma opposed. The ALJ granted the motion only to correct the error, confirming Issue 4 is sufficiently pleaded for June 6, 2023, through June 6, 2025. The ALJ denied the rest because Student showed no new or different facts, circumstances, or law. If Student does not timely amend, the hearing will proceed on Issues 1, 3a, 3b, 3e, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for that two-year period.
Why it matters
Reconsideration is a narrow tool: OAH will fix clear errors in an order, but it will not revisit a sufficiency ruling without new facts, circumstances, or law. Families whose issues are found insufficient are usually better served by filing a timely amended complaint.
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.
PETALUMA CITY SCHOOLS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060277
ORDER GRANTING IN PART STUDENT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND CORRECTING THE JUNE 23, 2025
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT
JULY 2, 2025
On June 23, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge, called ALJ, issued an Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient, referred to as the June 23, 2025 Order. The ALJ analyzed Student’s due process hearing request, called a complaint, and determined the claims occurring from June 6, 2023, through June 6, 2025, in Issues 1, 3a, 3b, 3e, 4, 5, and 7 of Student’s complaint were sufficiently plead.
Petaluma City School did not challenge the sufficiency of the complaint as to Issue 6.
The ALJ’s analysis determined Issues 2, 3c, and 3d, of Student’s complaint, and claims occurring prior to June 6, 2023, were insufficiently plead. However, the order section of the June 23, 2025 Order erroneously listed Issue 4 as insufficiently plead.
On June 30, 2025, Parents on behalf of Student filed a motion for reconsideration of the June 23, 2025 Order. Student seeks reconsideration of the Order deeming Issues 2, 3c, and 3d, and claims occurring prior to June 6, 2023, as insufficiently plead. Student also seeks reconsideration of the order listing Issue 4 as insufficiently plead. Petaluma filed an opposition to the motion on July 1, 2025.
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 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.)
To the extent Student’s motion for reconsideration seeks correction of the error listing Issue 4 as insufficiently plead in the June 23, 2025 Order, the motion for reconsideration is granted in part for that reason. However, Student’s motion fails to demonstrate new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration of the ALJ’s findings and orders determining the complaint’s Issues 2, 3c, and 3d, and claims occurring prior to June 6, 2023, insufficiently plead. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied for that reason.
The June 23, 2025 Order is corrected to list Issue 4 as sufficiently plead for claims occurring from June 6, 2023, through June 6, 2025. The June 23, 2025 Order is further corrected to order the hearing to proceed only on Issues 1, 3a, 3b, 3e, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in Student’s complaint for claims occurring from June 6, 2023, through June 6, 2025, if Student fails to file a timely amended complaint. All other orders in the June 23, 2025 Order remain in full force and effect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings