C.P. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ.

C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child; D.O., individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor child;S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child;JOHN and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of their minor child, JAMES DOE;Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S.;J.M. and E.M. on behalf of their minor children, C.M. and E.M.;M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; ROBERTA ROE, on behalf of her minor child ROBIN ROE;E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P;and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and LAMONT REPOLLET, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 19-12807

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

November 24, 2020

OPINION

CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN

REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP

19 CHESTNUT STREET

HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-1810

LISA MARIE QUARTAROLO

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC

694 ROUTE 15 SOUTH

LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849

ROBERT CRAIG THURSTON

THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC

100 SPRINGDALE ROAD A3

PMB 287

CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003

DAVID R. GILES

34 RYNDA ROAD

SOUTH ORANGE, NJ 07079

DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER

LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC

5 DUXBURY CT

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ 08550-2137

DONALD A. SOUTAR

JOHN RUE AND ASSOCIATES

37 MAIN STREET

SPARTA, NJ 07871

JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN

WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC

30B VREELAND ROAD

SUITE 120

FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932

KRISTA LYNN HALEY

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

37 MAIN ST.

SPARTA, NJ 07871

SARAN QIANA EDWARDS

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

37 MAIN STREET

SPARTA, NJ 07871

JOHN DOUGLAS RUE

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

694 ROUTE 15 SOUTH

SUITE 206

LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849

Counsel for Plaintiffs C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor; D.O., individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor; John Doe, individually and on behalf of James Doe, a minor; Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of James Doe, a minor; Y.H.S., individually and on behalf of C.H.S., a minor; H.Y., individually and on behalf of C.H.S., a minor; J.M., individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor; E.M., individually and on behalf of C.M., a minor; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M., a minor.

THOMAS JOSEPH O'LEARY

WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP

THREE GATEWAY CENTER

100 MULBERRY STREET

15TH FLOOR

NEWARK, NJ 07102

DAVID DANA CRAMER

WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP

THREE GATEWAY CENTER

100 MULBERRY STREET

15TH FLOOR

NEWARK, NJ 07102

ZAHIRE DESIREE ESTRELLA-CHAMBERS

WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP

THREE GATEWAY CENTER

100 MULBERRY STREET

15TH FLOOR

NEWARK, NJ 07102

CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN

REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP

19 CHESTNUT STREET

HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-1810

LISA MARIE QUARTAROLO

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC

694 ROUTE 15 SOUTH

LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849

DAVID R. GILES

34 RYNDA ROAD

SOUTH ORANGE, NJ 07079

DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER

LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC

5 DUXBURY CT

PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ 08550-2137

DONALD A. SOUTAR

JOHN RUE AND ASSOCIATES

37 MAIN STREET

SPARTA, NJ 07871

JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN

WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC

30B VREELAND ROAD

SUITE 120

FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932

KRISTA LYNN HALEY

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

37 MAIN ST.

SPARTA, NJ 07871

SARAN QIANA EDWARDS

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

37 MAIN STREET

SPARTA, NJ 07871

JOHN DOUGLAS RUE

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

694 ROUTE 15 SOUTH

SUITE 206

LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849

Counsel for Plaintiffs J.M., individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor; E.M., individually and on behalf of C.M., a minor.

ROBERT CRAIG THURSTON

THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC

100 SPRINGDALE ROAD A3

PMB 287

CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003

JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN

WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC

30B VREELAND ROAD

SUITE 120

FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932

JOHN DOUGLAS RUE

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

694 ROUTE 15 SOUTH

SUITE 206

LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849

Counsel for Plaintiff Roberta Roe.

CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN

REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP

19 CHESTNUT STREET

HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-1810

ROBERT CRAIG THURSTON

THURSTON LAW OFFICES LLC

100 SPRINGDALE ROAD A3

PMB 287

CHERRY HILL, NJ 08003

JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN

WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC

30B VREELAND ROAD

SUITE 120

FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932

JOHN DOUGLAS RUE

JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES

694 ROUTE 15 SOUTH

SUITE 206

LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849

Counsel for Plaintiff E.P.

AIMEE BLENNER

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

25 MARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 112

TRENTON, NJ 08625

KERRY SORANNO

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

25 MARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 112

TRENTON, NJ 08625

LAUREN AMY JENSEN

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

25 MARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 112

TRENTON, NJ 08625

Counsel for Defendants.

JENNIFER N. ROSEN VALVERDE

EDUCATION LAW CENTER

RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

123 WASHINGTON STREET

NEWARK, NJ 07102

Counsel for Amici Curiae SPAN Parent Advocacy Network; Advocates for Children of New Jersey; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Disability Rights New Jersey; Educational Law Center; NJ Special Education Practitioners; Volunteer Lawyers for Justice; Esther Canty-Barnes, Esq.; and Jennifer N. Rosen Valverde, Esq.

HILLMAN, District Judge

This putative class action centers on the New Jersey Department of Education's system for processing and issuing decisions on due process petitions filed by children with disabilities and their families under the Individuals with Disabilities Educations Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. Presently pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction and to certify their putative class. For the reasons expressed below, the Court intends to advance the full trial on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims and consolidate it with the hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction, and will deny the motion to certify their classwithout prejudice.

Background

The Court has previously outlined the factual and procedural background of this case in greater detail in its May 22, 2020 Opinion, (ECF No. 98), and assumes the parties' understanding of this background. Accordingly, it will not repeat those details except as necessary here.

Plaintiffs, a putative class of disabled minor children and their parents, filed an initial complaint in this action on May 22, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 21). After Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, (ECF No. 28), Plaintiffs moved for class certification, (ECF No. 30), and for two preliminary injunctions. (ECF No. 31 and 69). After the parties' briefing was submitted, the Court heard oral argument on these motions on February 18, 2020; during that argument, the Court invited Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint to more fully explain certain factual allegations. Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on February 27, (ECF No. 78), bringing claims under the IDEA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to Defendants' alleged systemic failure to decide due process petitions within the 45-day timeframe guaranteed by the IDEA.

The Court then continued the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on March 2, and then again on April15. After Defendants eventually moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, this Court issued an Opinion and Order on May 22. (ECF No. 98 and 99). The Opinion granted Defendants' motion to dismiss as to one of the plaintiff families, but denied it as to all other claims.

Shortly after, on May 26, the Court issued a Text Order. (ECF No. 102). The Text Order informed the parties that the hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction would be continued again due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the hearing previously scheduled for May 28, 2020 would be converted into a telephonic status call. That Order further "urge[d] the parties to consider consolidating Plaintiffs' outstanding motions for preliminary injunctions with an expedited trial on the merits" pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), and ordered the parties "to meet and confer before the status conference to ascertain their respective positions on whether a consolidated and expedited trial on the merits would be appropriate."

In a joint letter filed on May 27, Plaintiffs informed the Court that they were in favor of consolidating the injunctive relief aspects of their complaint with an expedited trial, while Defendants opposed consolidation and an expedited trial. Plaintiffs then filed a renewed motion to certify the class on June 7, (ECF No. 108), which Defendants have opposed. (ECF No. 117). Plaintiffs later filed a letter with the Court on June26, in which they informed the Court that they had changed their stance and now supported consolidation and a fully expedited trial on the merits as to all claims for relief. (ECF No. 119). In that letter, they further requested that the Court schedule additional briefing on the issue from both parties.

Finally, on August 12, the Court issued a Text Order finding that additional briefing was necessary, ordered "the parties to show cause why Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction ECF No. 31 should not be consolidated with an expedited trial on the merits of this action pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2)," and set a briefing schedule. (ECF No. 132). Plaintiffs filed a brief supporting consolidation with an expedited trial on the merits on September 3. (ECF No. 134). Defendants then filed a brief opposing consolidation on September 18, (ECF No. 136), to which Plaintiffs responded with a reply brief further supporting consolidation on September 24. (ECF No. 139).

Discussion

I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs' claims arise under the IDEA and § 1983. This Court, therefore, exercises subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

II. Consolidation under Rule 65(a)(2)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2) provides that"[b]efore or after beginning the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction, the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing." Accordingly, in cases where "an expedited decision on the merits [is] appropriate, Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a means of...