Howard v. Bd. of Educ.

1

Z.H., WILLIAM HOWARD, and LISA HOWARD, Plaintiffs, v. CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION and Y.A.L.E. SCHOOL NJ, Defendants.

RONALD DESIMONE P.O. BOX 8379 TURNERSVILLE, N.J. 08012-8379 Counsel for Plaintiffs.

No. 1:22-cv-01700-NLH-SAK

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 5, 2023

RONALD DESIMONE COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS.

ANNE ROBBINS MYERS COMEGNO LAW GROUP, P.C. COUNSEL FOR Y.A.L.E SCHOOL NJ

ALYSSA K. WEINSTEIN THE BUSCH LAW GROUP

COUNSEL FOR CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION.

OPINION

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

Currently before the Court are the Y.A.L.E. School, NJ's (“YALE”) and Cinnaminson Township Board of Education's (“Cinnaminson”) (collectively “Defendants”) Motions to Dismiss Z.H., William Howard, and Lisa Howards' (“Plaintiffs”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF 17, 19). For the reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss the SAC.

BACKGROUND

I. The IDEA

Though Plaintiffs assert claims under laws other than the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. (the “IDEA”), the thrust of their complaint is an appeal of a decision by a state Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denying them relief under that statute. Congress enacted the IDEA to, among other things, ensure “the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B).

The IDEA requires that every child with a disability receive a free appropriate public education (a “FAPE”) from their public school if that school receives federal funding under the IDEA. Id. at § 1412(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(a). The term “free appropriate public education” means the provision of “special education and related services” that meet certain criteria. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9). The IDEA also guarantees parents of disabled children a right to participate in the educational programming offered to their children.

To ensure that public schools adequately provide a FAPE and that the rights of disabled students and their parents are not infringed, Congress enacted various “procedural safeguards” that participating public schools must comply with. Id. at § 1412(6)(A); id. at § 1415(a). One such procedural safeguard provides standards for adjudicating disputes about whether a school has adequately provided a FAPE. Per Congress' requirements, these disputes begin with the filing of a “due process petition” or “due process complaint.” Either the public school or the child may file a due process complaint, and that complaint may seek relief with respect to “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” Id. at § 1415(b)(6).

The IDEA contemplates that it is the State Educational Agency that is responsible for making sure that there are fair and impartial procedures in place to handle any due process petition. Id. at §1415 (f)(1)(A) (“Whenever a complaint has been received under subsection (b)(6) or (k), the parents or the local educational agency involved in such complaint shall have an opportunity for an impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency, as determined by State law or by the State educational agency.”); id. at § 1415(e)(1) (“Any State educational agency or local educational agency that receives assistance under this subchapter shall ensure that procedures are established and implemented to allow parties to disputes involving any matter.”).

Once a due process complaint has been filed, Congress has set strict deadlines by which certain events must occur. See Id. at § 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) (referencing timelines “applicable [to] a due process hearing”); 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) (setting forth a strict timeframe for due process petition resolution); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(j) (same). In New Jersey, “[a] due process hearing is an administrative hearing conducted by an administrative law judge” (an “ALJ”) in the Office of Administrative Law (the “OAL”). N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(a).

JURISDICTION

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiffs assert a claim under a federal statute, the IDEA.^[1] See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. It has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' common-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Court takes the facts alleged in the complaint as true and will only recount those salient to the instant motion. Z.H. was a child who was receiving special education services from YALE. (ECF 16 at 34). In 2017, Z.H.'s parents filed a due process petition against Cinnaminson with the New Jersey Department of Education (“NJDOE”) and unilaterally placed Z.H at YALE where he attended school from 9^th through 12^th grade. (ECF 16-1 at 4).

The due process petition was resolved by way of a settlement agreement (the “2017 Agreement”) in which Z.H.'s parents agreed to pay the first $10,000 of Z.H.'s annual tuition at YALE and that Cinnaminson would reimburse them for the base tuition expended in excess of the first $10,000. (Id.) The 2017 Agreement was approved by an ALJ and memorialized on an administrative docket in December 2017 as a “Final Decision Approving Settlement.” (Id.). The 2017 Agreement provided that Cinnaminson's reimbursement obligation would continue after June 2021 “if and only if Z.H. is not eligible to, and does not, graduate high school by June 30, 2021.” (ECF 16-5 at ¶ 4).

In addition, in the 2017 Agreement, Plaintiffs waived their right to a FAPE and to hold Cinnaminson accountable for a FAPE while Z.H. was a student at YALE. (See ECF 16-5 at ¶ 8 (“[I]t is agreed and acknowledged that the Petitioners may challenge the appropriateness of only the related services offered by the District[.]”); see also id. at ¶¶ 16-17 (agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless Cinnaminson related to any services that Z.H. might receive from YALE); Id. at ¶ 17 (“Under no circumstances shall Z.H.'s attendance at [YALE]. . . be deemed an acknowledgment that [Cinnaminson]. . . is required to provide Z.H. with a FAPE.”)).

In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic hit the United States and YALE modified its teaching procedures between March 2020 and June 2021 such that it was impossible for Z.H. to complete his Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) goals and thereby receive a FAPE. (ECF 16 at 3-4). Specifically, Z.H.'s IEP contemplated that he would receive “social skills training, community-based instruction, transitional program training, mobility program training, vocational program training, health and wellness training, student-to-student contact, contact with non-disabled peers or situational environmental learning.” (Id. at 6). Instead, because of the pandemic, YALE switched to virtual and semi-virtual instruction through June 2021 and Z.H. was therefore unable to achieve many of his IEP goals. (Id. at 612).

On June 2, 2021, Z.H. filed a due process petition and a request for emergent relief with NJDOE. (See ECF 16-1 at 3).

Z.H. sought to have an ALJ at the OAL set aside the 2017 Agreement so that he could continue his placement at YALE with reimbursement from Cinnaminson. (Id.) The emergent portion of the application was addressed on June 11, 2021 and the remaining due process portion of the matter proceeded onward. (Id.) In connection with the merits of the due process proceedings, the ALJ entertained motion practice.

Relevant to the case at bar, Cinnaminson moved to dismiss the petition with prejudice and argued that the 2017 Agreement was controlling in this matter and that there had been no finding by YALE that Z.H. was ineligible to graduate in June 2021. (Id. at 10-11). Cinnaminson argued that it fulfilled its responsibilities under the agreement and that the OAL was not the appropriate tribunal to entertain voiding the 2017 Agreement. (Id. at 11).

The ALJ agreed with Cinnaminson and concluded that barring an affirmative statement from YALE that Z.H. was not eligible to graduate he was eligible to graduate for the purposes of construing the 2017 Agreement. (Id. at 15). The ALJ also concluded that the OAL did not have the jurisdiction to enforce or set aside the 2017 Agreement. (Id. at 17). Finally, the ALJ concluded that Z.H. had not met his burden to show that Cinnaminson should be responsible for payment of extended learning beyond June 30, 2021. (Id. at 19).

Following that decision by the ALJ, Plaintiffs filed the instant matter in federal court. (ECF 1). The instant matter contains seven counts. Count One is styled as an appeal of the ALJ's decision under the IDEA. (ECF 16 at 3-16). The next three counts are against Cinnaminson for alleged violation of the 2017 Agreement: breach of contract (Count Two), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Three), and unjust enrichment (Count Four). (Id. at 14-21). Counts Five through Seven are against YALE, not for breach of the 2017 Agreement to which it was not a party, but for breach of its separate contracts with the Plaintiff parents to provide educational services to Z.H. in the 2019-2020 and the 2020-2021 school years: breach of contract (Count Five), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Six), and unjust enrichment (Count Seven). (Id. at 21-29).

The Court will begin with Count One. As explained below, this Court, as did the ALJ below, lacks the authority to adjudicate the contractual dispute between the parties under the IDEA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the IDEA and the SAC will be dismissed. Consistent with the reasoning behind that decision, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff...