California OAH special education order · February 11, 2026
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2026010058 · ALJ Thanayi Lindsey
OAH denied Ventura's request to reconsider an order finding Student's complaint sufficient because Ventura offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
OAH found Student's due process complaint sufficient on January 26, 2026. Ventura then moved for reconsideration, arguing the ALJ had based the sufficiency finding on a reframed issue. Student did not respond. OAH denied the motion and confirmed all dates, explaining that the earlier order only found the complaint and proposed resolutions sufficient, based on all the facts alleged in the complaint, and that Ventura presented nothing new to justify reconsideration.
Why it matters
A district cannot get a sufficiency ruling reversed just by disagreeing with it. Reconsideration requires new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and OAH judges sufficiency on everything the complaint alleges.
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.
VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026010058
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
FEBRUARY 11, 2026
On January 26, 2026, OAH issued to the parties an order determining Student’s complaint sufficient. On February 4, 2026, Ventura Unified School District, called Ventura, filed a motion for reconsideration. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Student.
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.)
Here, Ventura alleged that this ALJ based its findings of sufficiency on a reframed issue and therefore, the order warranted reconsideration. Contrary to Ventura’s argument, the January 26, 2026 order only determined that the complaint and proposed resolutions were sufficient and the existing dates remained on calendar. Moreover, the order of sufficiency was based on the totality of the facts alleged in the complaint.
Under these circumstances, Ventura has not established that the January 26, 2026 order determining the complaint sufficient should be reconsidered because there were no new or different facts, circumstances, or law to be considered. Therefore, Ventura has provided no basis upon which to grant reconsideration.
ORDER
1. Ventura’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
2. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Thanayi Lindsey Thanayi Lindsey (Feb 11, 2026 13:52:33 PST)
Thanayi Lindsey Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings