California OAH special education order · August 10, 2026
Order Denying Student's Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2026020379 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider the denial of a peremptory challenge against ALJ Paul Kamoroff because Student offered no new facts, circumstances, or law and did not cure the untimely filing.
Summary
OAH had earlier denied Student's peremptory challenge against ALJ Paul Kamoroff, and Student asked OAH to reconsider. Student argued the challenge was timely because ALJ Kamoroff was not truly 'assigned' to the case, even though he had held two prehearing conferences, since OAH often replaces assigned ALJs before hearing. Because the hearing was set to start the next day, OAH ruled without waiting for the District to respond. The Presiding ALJ denied reconsideration, finding that complaints about how OAH assigns judges do not excuse a late peremptory challenge and that Student offered no new or different facts, circumstances, or law.
Why it matters
A peremptory challenge must be filed on time, and an ALJ who has held prehearing conferences is treated as assigned to the case. Arguing that OAH often swaps judges will not save a late challenge, and a reconsideration request needs genuinely new facts, circumstances, or law.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
People named in the order
- Paul Kamoroff, Administrative Law Judge (subject of peremptory challenge)
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.
VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026020379
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
AUGUST 10, 2026
On August 6, 2010, the undersigned Presiding Administrative Law Judge from the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, issued an Order Denying Peremptory Challenge. On August 7, 2026, Student filed a motion for reconsideration. Given the close proximity of the hearing start date on August 11, 2026, OAH did not wait its customary three business days to allow the responding party to reply. Vacaville Unified School District had not filed a response when this Order was issued.
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.)
Student argues that its peremptory challenge against ALJ Paul Kamoroff was not untimely and should have been granted because, even though ALJ Kamoroff convened two prehearing conferences with the parties, he was not technically “assigned” to the case because “OAH routinely removes the assigned ALJs from the hearing.” Further, Student argues that “Because of OAH’s practice of assigning ALJs to hear a matter – but not doing so permanently and replacing ALJs who have been ‘assigned’ to hear a complaint following their assignment, the motion by Petitioner was timely and should be granted.”
Student’s arguments are not persuasive to warrant reconsideration or granting the peremptory challenge against ALJ Kamoroff. Student’s arguments take issue with how OAH assigns ALJs to cases but fail to overcome Student’s noncompliance with the law on filing a timely peremptory challenge. Further, Student did not offer any new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tara Doss Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings