J.A. v. Bd. of Educ.

1

J.A., individually and on behalf of her minor child J.A., Plaintiff, v. MONROE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants.

Nos. 20-09498-ESK-MJS, 21-06283-ESK-MJS

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

November 29, 2024

OPINION

Edward S. Kiel, United States District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the motions for partial summary judgment of plaintiffs Joanna A.,^[1] individually and on behalf of her minor child J.A., against the New Jersey Department of Education, Kevin Dehmer as Interim Commissioner of Education, and the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (State Defendants) (ECF No. 238) and Monroe Township Board of Education (the Board) (ECF No. 239) the Board's cross-motions for summary judgment and motion to seal (ECF Nos. 248, 250, 263); and State Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 252). For the following reasons, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against State Defendants and defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment against plaintiffs will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the Board and the Board's motion to dismiss will both be DENIED.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

J.A. is a student who has been classified with autism and deemed eligible for special education and related services. (ECF No 248-1 p.3.) Joanna A. is J.A.'s mother. (ECF No. 256-1 p.2.) On May 24, 2017, Joanna A. filed a pro se request for a due process hearing (DP 1) with the New Jersey Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs. (ECF No. 238-4 pp. 62-65.) Mediation was held on June 19, 2017. (Id. pp. 72-74.) Mediation did not resolve the matter and DP 1 was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law for a hearing scheduled before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lisa James-Beavers for July 6 2017. (Id. p.75.) Plaintiffs later requested adjournment of the hearing to a date after July 24, 2017. (Id. pp.80-82.)^[2] A prehearing conference was ultimately held before ALJ Jeffrey R. Wilson on September 27, 2017 and a hearing was thereafter scheduled for January 8, 2018. (Id. pp. 83-87.)

Plaintiffs' present counsel entered an appearance on November 17, 2017 and filed a motion to amend plaintiffs' hearing request and for a stay-put and sanctions. (ECF No. 238-6 pp. 94-108.) The motion to amend specified that plaintiffs were not seeking an adjournment and were willing to move forward with the schedule set out by ALJ Wilson. (Id. p.97.) On December 6, 2017, the Board provided plaintiffs with “a complete copy of the student file.” (ECF No. 239-4 p.9.)

ALJ Wilson scheduled a status conference for March 12, 2018 on January 2, 2018. (ECF 238-7 p.5.) Plaintiffs then moved for the Board to fund an independent educational evaluation wherein they sought to “adjourn the hearing and decision in this matter for a period of time sufficient to complete the [independent educational evaluation] and determine if this matter can be resolved as a result thereof.” (Id. pp.8, 9.) The hearing for DP 1 was subsequently scheduled for March 27, 2018 and, later, June 11, 2018. (Id. pp.11, 15.) ALJ Wilson denied plaintiffs' motions for an independent educational evaluation, to amend, and for sanctions, but granted their motion for a stay-put. (Id. pp.26-33.)

On June 11, 2018, ALJ Wilson emailed the parties to inform them that the call scheduled for that day had been adjourned. (Id. p.36.) Two days later, ALJ Wilson notified the parties that he was recusing himself from the case due to the federal lawsuit filed against him. (Id. p.38.)^[3] DP 1 was then reassigned to ALJ John S. Kennedy, who scheduled four hearings to be held in October 2018. (Id. pp. 40-44.)

As DP 1 was pending, plaintiffs filed a separate request for a due process hearing (DP 2) on May 22, 2018. (ECF No. 238-5 pp.2-4.) The parties requested an adjournment until August 2, 2018 to engage in mediation. (Id. pp.6, 7.) DP 2 was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law on August 9, 2018 and a hearing before ALJ Ellen S. Bass was scheduled for August 16, 2018. (Id. pp.10, 11.) On August 13, 2018, the Board moved to have DP 1 and DP 2 consolidated. (Id. pp. 15-18.) ALJ Kennedy granted the motion to consolidate the following day. (Id. pp.26, 27.)

Plaintiffs served their Five-Day Exchange binder on the Board on September 24, 2018, in advance of the October 1, 2018 hearing scheduled for DP 1 and DP 2 (Consolidated Cases). (ECF No. 238-7 p.59.) The Board provided its Five-Day Exchange materials the following day. (ECF No. 238-6 pp. 17, 65-67.) Plaintiffs, on September 24, 2018, moved to preclude the Board from presenting evidence at the October 1, 2018 hearing for failure to exchange evidence at least five business days before the hearing as required by federal and state law. (ECF No. 238-7 pp. 61-65.) ALJ Kennedy denied the motion to preclude to the extent that materials were previously provided in discovery and granted plaintiffs a stay to file an interlocutory appeal to this Court. (Id. p. 93.)

While the Consolidated Cases were pending, the Board filed a due process complaint (DP 3) on March 5, 2020. (ECF No. 238-5 pp.29-36.) The parties agreed to extend the pre-hearing resolution period for 60 days due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and a resolution session was scheduled for May 19, 2020. (Id. p.39.) DP 3 was then transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law and set for a June 4, 2020 hearing. (Id. pp.40, 41.) On June 2, 2020, plaintiffs wrote to the Board requesting access to J.A.'s student records no later than June 8, 2020. (ECF No. 239-4 pp. 20-22.) Counsel for the Board responded on June 9, 2020 stating that plaintiffs' deadline was “unreasonable and unsupported by the law.” (Id. pp.24, 25.) Plaintiffs requested an adjournment to June 11, 2020 or June 18, 2020 and the hearing was rescheduled for June 18, 2020. (ECF No. 238-5 pp. 42-45.)

Plaintiffs provided their Five-Day Exchange materials to the Board on June 11, 2020. (ECF No. 238-8 pp.2-7.) On June 12, 2020, the office of ALJ Mary Ann Bogan advised the parties that a settlement conference was to be held on June 18, 2020. (ECF No. 238-5 p.48.) Plaintiffs objected to the holding of a settlement conference rather a hearing or any measure that would have changed the June 18, 2020 hearing date or excused the alleged failure of the Board to comply with the Five-Day Exchange. (Id. pp. 46, 47.) That same day, plaintiffs moved to bar the Board from presenting evidence for failure to comply with the Five-Day Exchange. (ECF No. 238-8 pp. 12-21.)

DP 3 was reassigned to ALJ Joseph Ascione, who held a prehearing conference on June 16, 2020. (ECF No. 238-5 p.50.) ALJ Ascione scheduled hearings for July 9 and July 10, 2020 and ordered that evidence and witness lists be exchanged, and legal briefing be completed, by July 2, 2020. (Id. pp. 52-58.) In a July 16, 2020 final decision, ALJ Ascione found in favor of the Board. (ECF No. 238-9 pp. 97-112.) Plaintiffs, in turn, filed a 20-count complaint^[4] under Docket No. 20-09498. (ECF No. 1.)

Meanwhile, Judge Hillman dismissed plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal without prejudice on July 22, 2020. (Docket No. 18-14838, ECF No. 21.) The Consolidated Cases were assigned to ALJ Catherine A. Tuohy on remand. (ECF No. 238-7 pp. 48-50.) Plaintiffs wrote to ALJ Tuohy objecting both to the proposed hearing dates-spread across September, October, November, and December 2020 and allegedly to accommodate the Board's counsel's schedule-and the Board's introduction of any evidence, particularly witnesses. (Id. pp. 52-57.) ALJ Tuohy concluded that ALJ Kennedy's evidentiary ruling remained in effect and was the law of the case. (Id. pp.109, 110.) Hearings were held on September 21, 2020; October 2, 2020; October 23, 2020; November 16, 2020; November 20, 2020; and December 4, 2020. (ECF No. 238-8 pp. 29-37.) During the December 4, 2020 hearing, ALJ Tuohy provided the parties until December 11, 2020 to submit written closing statements, to which plaintiffs objected on the basis that the briefing would cause further delay. (Id. pp. 36-37, ECF No. 238-9 p.4.)

ALJ Tuohy issued a final decision on February 22, 2021, dismissing the petitions of the Consolidated Cases. (ECF No. 238-9 pp.2-95.) Plaintiffs followed ALJ Tuohy's decision with a 22-count complaint filed under Docket No. 21-06283. (Docket No. 21-06283, ECF No. 1.)

Judge Hillman held in a pair of decisions that individual administrative law judges were entitled to judicial immunity and dismissed plaintiffs' claims against them with prejudice. Joanna A. v. Monroe Twp. Bd. of Educ., Case No. 21-06283, 2022 WL 970212, at *8 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2022); J.A. v. Monroe Twp. Board of Educ., Case No. 20-09498, 2022 WL 970194, at *10 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2022). The cases were consolidated and Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Skahill entered an order amending the case caption and directing that future filings be made with a consolidated caption under Docket No. 2009498. (ECF No. 110.)

The parties engaged in summary judgment motion practice. In an August 22, 2023 opinion and order, Judge Hillman denied the Board's motions without prejudice for failure to comply with the Local Civil Rules. (ECF No. 213.) Judge Hillman also denied plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment against the Board and State Defendants and the Board's motion for partial summary judgment and motions to seal. (Aug. 24, 2023 Op., ECF No. 215 (Aug. 24, 2023 Order).) Relevant to the instant motions, Judge Hillman provided State Defendants with an opportunity to obtain the discovery necessary to defend against a renewed motion by plaintiffs upon their representation that they were unable to present facts necessary to their opposition. (Aug. 24, 2023 Op. pp. 11-18 Aug. 24, 2023 Order p.2.) The...