California OAH special education order · March 9, 2026
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion for Sanctions
OAH Case No. 2026010399 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH denied Parent's request to reconsider the denial of sanctions against Cupertino Union School District because the request only repeated earlier arguments and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
This case went to decision
Student v. Cupertino Union School District: Cupertino Union prevails in expedited discipline case; student's exclusion from after-school program was not a disciplinary removal. (2026)
Summary
On March 2, 2026, OAH denied Student's motion for entry of default and motion for sanctions. The next day, Parent asked OAH to reconsider the sanctions ruling. The ALJ denied the request because Parent offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law. Parent also gave no explanation for not raising any possibly new material earlier, and the request restated arguments the March 2 order had already addressed.
Why it matters
A reconsideration request at OAH must present genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law and explain why they were not raised before. Repeating the original arguments will not succeed.
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.
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026010399
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
MARCH 9, 2026
On March 2, 2026, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Student’s motion for entry of default and motion for sanctions. On March 3, 2026, Parent filed a request for reconsideration of denial of sanctions. Cupertino Union School District did file a response. On March 4, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued the Expedited Decision in this matter.
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.)
DISCUSSION
Parent on behalf of Student does not offer any new facts, circumstances, or law, to support reconsideration. And Parent does not offer any explanation for failing to previously provide any legal citations and factual assertions which may possibly be considered new or different. The motion restates arguments and factual assertions made in Student’s initial motion for sanctions, which were addressed in the March 2, 2026 order denying Student’s sanctions request.
ORDER
Parent on behalf of Student has not established the March 2, 2026 order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration of order denying sanctions is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Clifford H. Woosley Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings