California OAH special education order · August 3, 2026
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2026060029 · ALJ Katherine Roe
OAH denied Parent's motion to reconsider the dismissal of Student's case for failure to prosecute because it was filed 17 days late and offered no new facts, circumstances, or law.
Summary
Parent, representing Student without a lawyer, asked OAH to reconsider and vacate a July 10, 2026, order that dismissed Student's case after Parent missed the prehearing conference and did not respond to an Order to Show Cause. Parent argued that Long Beach led her to believe it would coordinate scheduling with OAH, that the Zoom invitation arrived too late to give practical notice, and that Student would suffer educational harm if the case was not reinstated. OAH denied the motion because it was filed 17 days after the dismissal, which is not a reasonable time, and it offered no new facts, circumstances, or law. The scheduling order served June 1, 2026, gave notice of the prehearing conference, and Student, as the party who filed, had the duty to appear and follow OAH orders. OAH noted that Student may file a new case.
Why it matters
Parents who file are responsible for attending every OAH conference listed in the scheduling order and for answering any Order to Show Cause, even if they believe the district or OAH is handling scheduling. Motions for reconsideration should be filed within about ten days and must present 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
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.
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026060029
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AUGUST 3, 2026
On July 10, 2026, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Dismissing Case for Failure to Prosecute and Denying Motion to Continue as Moot. On July 27, 2026, Parent on behalf of Student filed an Emergency Motion to Reconsider and Vacate the July 10, 2026, dismissal. The Office of Administrative Hearings did not receive a response from Long Beach Unified School District, called Long Beach. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH.
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
The motion for reconsideration was filed 17 days after the initial Order was issued. Student did not file the motion for reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. Further, Student offers no new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration. Student argues that the Order dismissing the case should be reconsidered and vacated for three reasons. First, Student argues that Parent’s failure to attend the July 6, 2026, prehearing conference was a result of a good-faith misunderstanding induced by Long Beach that Long Beach’s counsel would coordinate dates for mediation. Parent argues that she was led to believe that Long Beach was communicating with OAH regarding scheduling arrangements. Parent argues that as a self-represented parent, she relied on Long Beach.
Second, Parent argues that she did not attend the prehearing conference due to a lack of practical notice and systemic failure by OAH. Parent received the Zoom invitation the afternoon of July 3, 2026, for the July 6, 2026, prehearing conference.
Parent argues that the Zoom invitation sent on July 3, 2026, failed to provide adequate notice or reasonable business hours to process. Parent further argues that due to the rapid timeline and lack of notice she was unaware of the pending Order to Show Cause until after the deadline to respond.
Finally, Parent argues immediate, irreparable educational harm to Student will result if the order dismissing is not vacated because Student is on an administrative waitlist and separated from his sibling due to a District enrollment glitch. Parent argues that requiring Student to refile will prevent Student from starting high school at his designated school.
Student has not offered any new facts, circumstances or law to support reconsideration. The OAH Scheduling Order for this matter included the date and time for the prehearing conference, called a PHC, and was served on the parties on June 1,
2026. Parent had sufficient notice of the PHC. In her argument, Parent mistakenly
places the blame for her nonattendance at the PHC and nonresponse to the Order to Show Cause on Long Beach and OAH. Student filed the complaint and had a duty to prosecute the case which includes Student’s representative appearing at the PHC and timely responding to the Order to Show Cause. Parent, as Student’s representative, was responsible for following OAH’s orders and making all required appearances. Parent was advised that failure to do so may result in Student’s complaint being dismissed.
Nothing in this Order or dismissal order prevents Student from filing a new case.
Should Student elect that option, Student will be required to diligently follow all OAH orders, including scheduling orders.
ORDER
Student has not established the July 10, 2026, Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Katherine Roe Katherine Roe Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings