California OAH special education order · July 20, 2026
Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
OAH Case No. 2026060399 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH denied Student's request to reconsider a stay put ruling. The request came over a month late, relied on information Student already had, and did not show Elevations was not comparable to Lava Academy.
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its June 19, 2026 order denying Student's stay put motion, which found Elevations to be Student's stay put placement. Student also asked for temporary home-based or other safe interim educational services. Scotts Valley opposed, arguing the request was untimely and raised no new facts, circumstances, or law. OAH denied reconsideration for three reasons: the request was filed more than a month after the order, outside the usual ten-day window; the information was readily available when Student first sought stay put; and the evidence that Elevations was not comparable to Lava Academy was insufficient and unpersuasive.
Why it matters
A party seeking reconsideration should file within about ten days and present truly new facts or law, with an explanation of why they were not raised earlier. To challenge a placement's comparability for stay put, families should present their strongest evidence in the first stay put motion.
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:
SCOTTS VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026060399
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
JULY 20, 2026
On June 19, 2026, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Denying Motion for Stay Put. On July 20, 2026, Student filed a Request for Reconsideration of Stay Put Determination and for Temporary Home-Based Educational Services Or, In the Alternative, Other Safe Interim Educational Services. On July 20, 2026, Scotts Valley Unified School District filed an opposition contending Student’s request for reconsideration is untimely and raises no new facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration.
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
Student’s request for reconsideration was filed over a month after the undersigned ALJ’s order denying Student’s request for stay put and is thus untimely.
However, even if timely filed, the information serving as the basis to challenge the undersigned ALJ’s order finding that Elevations is Student’s stay put placement, was readily available to Student at the time of Student’s initial request for stay put. Lastly, even if Student established a basis for reconsideration, the information supporting Student’s claim that Elevations was not a comparable placement to Lava Academy, and thus cannot be Student’s stay put placement, was insufficient and unpersuasive to establish the programs as not comparable for the purpose of stay put.
ORDER
Student has not established the Order should be reconsidered. The motion for reconsideration is denied. All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings