M.N. v. Sparta Twp. Bd. of Educ.

M.N., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A.D., & A.D., Plaintiffs, v. SPARTA TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, & ANGELICA ALLEN-MCMILLAN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-19977

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 12, 2022

Not for publication

OPINION

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs M.N. and A.D.'s (collectively “Plaintiffs) motion, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 and L. Civ. R. 65.1, for a preliminary injunction. D.E. 11. Plaintiffs seek an order reenrolling A.D. in Sparta High School pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Defendants, the Sparta Township Board of Education (“STBOE”), the New Jersey Department of Education (“NJDOE”), and Angelica Allen-McMillan the Commissioner of Education, (collectively with NJDOE “the State Defendants”) oppose Plaintiffs' request. The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions^[1] and held oral argument on February 10 2022 and March 30, 2022. For the reasons set forth below Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

The operative facts do not appear to be disputed. Plaintiff A.D. is a nineteen-year-old young man who suffers from disabilities. D.E. 17 (“Am. Compl.”) ¶ 20. A.D. lives in Sparta, New Jersey. Id. ¶ 21. He is Plaintiff M.N.'s son, and he lives with M.N. and his father, R.D., who is not a party. Id. ¶¶ 25, 50.

A.D. began attending Sparta High School at the start of the 2018-2019 school year, his sophomore year. D.E. 11-2 (“M.N. Cert.”) ¶ 4. With M.N.'s input, the school district's Child Study Team formulated and implemented an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for A.D. Id. The IEP's twin aims were to ensure that A.D. graduated from high school upon completing a traditional four-year curriculum and that A.D. received a standard high-school diploma. Id. ¶ 5.

A.D. adjusted well in his first few months at Sparta High School. Id. ¶ 6. However, in early 2019, M.N. became concerned that A.D. was falling victim to peer pressure at Sparta High School and developing nicotine dependence through vaping. Id. ¶ 7. Additionally, a March 9, 2018 email to M.N. from Susanna Allison, a high school counselor, indicated that A.D. had a significant number of unexcused absences and was in danger of losing credit for several courses. D.E. 11-2 at 12. After meetings with the school district in February and March of 2019, M.N. decided to place A.D. in home instruction. M.N. Cert. ¶ 7. M.N. began A.D.'s full-time instruction on March 11, 2019. Id. Plaintiffs allege that because of the district's requests for professional and medical assessments, the district delayed approving remote learning. Id. ¶ 8. To ameliorate the effects of the delay, M.N. had A.D. review GED materials. Id. M.N. informed the district of her intention, telling them that A.D.'s use of GED materials would be “a temporary framework.” Id. ¶ 9. A.D. reenrolled in Sparta High School on April 17, 2019. Id. ¶ 12. The school placed A.D. on home instruction through a software program called “Educere, ” and augmented that regimen with “limited in-person tutoring.” Id. In the meantime, A.D. took and passed the GED exam. See Id. ¶ 13. The State of New Jersey awarded A.D. a high school diploma on April 29, 2019. Id. The State issued the diploma based on A.D.'s score on the GED exam. Id.

On May 22, 2019, Sparta's Vice-Principal Michael Lauricella sent a letter to M.N. advising her that the school would not provide A.D. with any educational services because he had received a GED. Id. ¶ 14. M.N. responded that the school's actions would violate the IDEA. Id. ¶ 15. Lauricella represented that he had consulted with the school district's lawyer and told M.N. that A.D. had the right to enroll in the school until he turned twenty-one, for the purpose of obtaining a standard high school diploma. Id. After M.N. met with Lauricella and the school's director of special services, the school resumed A.D.'s home instruction. Id. On June 13, 2019, the STBOE devised a new IEP for A.D. Am. Compl. ¶ 51.

A.D. returned to Sparta High School for in-person classes at the beginning of the 2019-2020 school year, his junior year. Id. ¶ 52. A.D. transitioned well, except that he required some additional support with his work. See M.N. Cert. ¶ 17. In March of 2020, the high school was closed for in-person instruction because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and A.D. was sent back to remote learning. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 52-53. A.D. became “despondent over the prospect of continued remote learning with no end in sight.” M.N. Cert. ¶ 18. He received what M.N. considered to be inadequate support from Sparta High School. Id. ¶ 17. On May 27, 2020, A.D. was given another IEP, again created with M.N.'s input, which said that “[A.D.] is encouraged to stay with the remote learning and complete his junior year as there are many social and peer experiences awaiting him in senior year which he will benefit [from] and enjoy.” Am. Compl. ¶ 55 (alterations in original).

M.N. withdrew A.D. from the high school on June 8, 2020 because of his difficulties with remote learning. Id. ¶¶ 57-58.

With the permission of school and district representatives, M.N. began the process of reenrolling A.D. in the high school in September of 2020. M.N. Cert. ¶ 19. However, because it was apparent to Plaintiffs that A.D.'s education would involve remote learning, A.D.'s family decided not to complete the enrollment process. Id. Instead, A.D. enlisted in the United States Army. D.E. 1 at 50 ¶ 11 (ALJ Betancourt's recitation of facts in EDU Case). On December 16, 2020, A.D. was medically discharged from the service. Id. at 50 ¶ 12.

In-person learning began again at Sparta High School in the spring of 2021, and M.N. attempted to reenroll A.D. in April or May. Am. Compl. ¶ 59; M.N. Cert. ¶ 20. The STBOE rebuffed Plaintiffs' attempt, saying that A.D.'s receipt of a New Jersey high school diploma ended his eligibility for enrollment. Am. Compl. ¶ 59.

B. Procedural History

On May 10, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a due process petition with the Office of Special Education Dispute Resolution (“SPEDR”), alleging that the STBOE had violated the IDEA. Id. ¶ 61. The parties refer to that action as the “EDS Case.” See Id. SPEDR transferred the EDS Case to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (“NJOAL”) on June 6, 2021. Id. ¶ 62.

While the EDS Case was pending, the STBOE filed a June 11, 2021 petition for a declaratory ruling with the NJDOE Office of Controversies and Disputes. Id. ¶ 74. The parties refer to that action as the “EDU Case.” Id. The STBOE sought a declaration that A.D.'s receipt of a diploma terminated his right to special education from the STBOE under the IDEA, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 18A:46-1.1, et seq., and all applicable regulations. Id. That matter was likewise transferred to the NJOAL on July 9, 2021. Id. ¶ 77.

Both the EDS and EDU Cases were assigned to Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Thomas R. Betancourt, but the ALJ did not consolidate them. Id. ¶ 78. Instead, the ALJ granted the STBOE's motion to decide the EDU Case as a summary proceeding and issued a written initial decision on August 16, 2021, agreeing with the STBOE that because A.D. had obtained a state-issued diploma, he was precluded from reenrolling in Sparta High School. D.E. 1 at 48-55. Commissioner Allen-McMillan issued a final decision in the EDU Case on September 28, 2021, concurring with ALJ Betancourt and granting the STBOE's petition. Id. at 44-47. M.N. has appealed that decision, and it is pending before the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey. D.E. 1 at 26.

On August 24, 2021, ALJ Betancourt held a one-day trial in the EDS Case. Am. Compl. ¶ 63. The ALJ heard the testimony of Dr. Susan Lorentz, Sparta School District's School Psychologist and A.D.'s case manager, as well as the testimony of M.N., and reviewed several exhibits. D.E. 1 at 30-32, 37-38. The following day, August 25, 2021, ALJ Betancourt entered an order dismissing M.N.'s petition, relying on his reasoning in the EDU Case and again ruling that A.D.'s receipt of the state-issued diploma ended his eligibility for a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). Id. at 35-36.

On November 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this Court. D.E. 1; see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(i)(2)-(3). Plaintiffs attack the judgments in both the EDS and EDU Cases and “seek to reverse the Final Decision of ALJ Betancourt, pursuant to the IDEA, [and] to enjoin the Final Decision of Commissioner Allen-McMillan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983[.]” Am. Compl. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion on December 21, 2021. D.E. 11. After the Court set a briefing schedule and heard oral argument on February 10, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiffs and the State Defendants to submit further briefing, D.E. 33, ^[2] and then heard additional argument.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Injunctions are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1. A preliminary injunction is “extraordinary” relief. Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharm Co., 290 F.3d 578, 586 (3d Cir. 2002). Injunctive relief may only be granted when a party demonstrates that it has a reasonable probability of success on the merits, it will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the injunction does not issue, the grant of preliminary relief will not result in greater harm to the nonmoving party, and the injunctive relief is in the public interest. N.J. Retail Merchs. Ass'n v. Sidamon-Eristoff, 669 F.3d 374, 385-86 (3d Cir. 2012). A court must balance the four factors, provided that the party seeking the injunction demonstrates that it can satisfy...