C.B., on behalf of minor child, A.J.B. v. Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County, 6/15/2021, (#127-21)

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

127-21
New J ersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
C.B., on behalf of minor child, A.J.B.,
Petitioner,
Vv.

Board of Education of the City of Newark,
Essex County,

Respondent.

Synopsis

Pro se petitioner filed a petition challenging the online processes required by the respondent Board to enroll
petitioner’s child at Newark’s Central High School for the 2020-2021 school year. Petitioner claimed,
inter alia, that she was being bullied, intimidated, manipulated and forced to register A.J.B. online with her
personal information such as immunization records, photo ID, proof of residence and birth certificate. In
her filing, no relief was requested aside froma statement that “this matter needs attention,” and in response
to the Board’s interrogatory regarding the relief being sought, petitioner responded that she was “seeking
a[n] investigation.” The Board filed a motion for summary decision, contending, inter alia, that the matter
is moot, as A,J.B. is enrolled and attending Central High School; further, the online registration protocol
for the 2020-2021 school year had been approved by the Department of Education for use during the
Covid-19 pandemic; and petitioner failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is npe for summary
decision; the claims set forth in the petition are either moot, insufficient to assert a justiciable claim for
relief or outside of the OAL’s jurisdiction. The AL] concluded that the dismissal of the petition of appeal
is warranted. Accordingly, the Board's motion to dismiss was granted and the petition was dismissed with
prejudice.

Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that petitioner’s claims regarding the enrollment
of her child are moot, and that any other issues raised by petitioner fail to state a claim for relief that can be
granted by the Commissioner. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary decision was granted, and
the petition of appeal was dismissed.

This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the

reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 10179-20
Agency Dkt. No. 213-10/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.B., on behalf of minor child, A.J.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark,
Essex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that
petitioner’s claims regarding the enrollment of her child are moot, and that any other issues
raised by petitioner fail to state a claim for relief than can be granted by the Commissioner.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary decision is granted, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
127-21
June 15, 2021
June 15, 2021

fasiry,

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 213-10/20

C.B. ON BEHALF OF MINOR
CHILD A.J.B.,
Petitioner,
V.
CITY OF NEWARK BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ESSEX COUNTY,

Respondent.

C.B., petitioner, pro se

Bernard Mercado, Senior Associate Counsel, for respondent (Brenda C. Liss,

General Counsel)

Record Closed: April 22, 2021 Decided: May 3, 2021

BEFORE MARGARET M. MONACO, ALJ:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner C.B. on behalf of A.J.B. commenced this action relating to her son’s
enrollment at Central High School in Newark. The Board of Education of the City of

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20

Newark (the Board) contends that dismissal of the matter is appropriate since the issues
raised by the petition have been rendered moot and the relief sought by petitioner is
beyond the jurisdiction of this forum.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about October 6, 2020, petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the
Commissioner of Education (the Commissioner). On or about October 21, 2020, the
Board filed an Answer to Petition of Appeal, and the Department of Education transmitted
the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for determination as a contested case. On
November 23, 2020, | held a prehearing conference and thereafter issued a prehearing
order scheduling the hearing for April 16, 2020. Prior to the hearing, the Board filed a
motion for summary decision and the hearing was adjourned at the Board’s request. In
support of its motion, the Board filed a brief and a certification of counsel (Mercado Cert.).
Petitioner filed a response opposing the motion and the Board filed a reply brief. The

record was closed upon receipt of the last submission.

FACTUAL DISCUSSION

Based upon a review of the documentation submitted, | FIND the following
undisputed FACTS:

Petitioner is the parent of student A.J.B. (See Petition of Appeal).1_ On or about
September 8, 2020, petitioner enrolled A.J.B. at Central High School in Newark for the
2020-2021 school year. (See Petition of Appeal; Mercado Cert. at Exhibit A.)

Or about October 6, 2020, petitioner filed the instant Petition of Appeal relating to
the Board’s enrollment process. Petitioner claims, among other things, that she was
being bullied, intimidated, manipulated and forced to register A.J.B. on-line with her
personal information such as immunization records, photo ID, proof of residence and birth
certificate; she advised a Board representative that she “felt very uncomfortable providing

1 The Petition of Appeal does not include numbered paragraphs.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20

[her] private information online” because the information “is not safe [and] secure”; and
Board representatives were “very disrespectful.” (See Petition of Appeal.) In her Petition
of Appeal, petitioner requests relief in the form of “[t]his matter needs attention.” In
response to the Board’s interrogatory regarding the relief being sought, petitioner
responded that she was “seeking a[n] investigation.” (Mercado Cert. at Exhibit C, Answer

to Interrogatory 9.)

LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), summary decision “may be rendered if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is
entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” This rule is substantially similar to the summary-
judgment rule embodied in the New Jersey Court Rules. See Judson v. Peoples Bank &
Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). In Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142
N.J. 520, 540 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the appropriate test to

be employed in deciding the motion:

[A] determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational
factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the
non-moving party. The “judge’s function is not. . . to weigh
the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” .... If
there exists a single, unavoidable resolution of the alleged
disputed issue of fact, that issue should be considered
insufficient to constitute a “genuine” issue of material fact for
purposes of Rule 4:46-2.

[Citations omitted.]

In evaluating the merits of the motion, all inferences of doubt are drawn against
the movant and in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed. Judson, 17

N.J. at 75. However, “[w]hen a motion for summary decision is made and supported, an

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20

adverse party in order to prevail must by responding affidavit set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue which can only be determined in an evidentiary
proceeding.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). The New Jersey Supreme Court has cautioned that,
“if the opposing party offers no affidavits or matter in opposition, or only facts which are
immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla, . . . ‘[flanciful, frivolous, gauzy or
merely suspicious’ . . ., he will not be heard to complain if the court grants summary
judgment, taking as true the statement of uncontradicted facts in the papers relied upon
by the moving party, such papers themselves not otherwise showing the existence of an

issue of material fact.” Judson, 17 N.J. at 75 (citation omitted). Stated differently, "[bJare

conclusions . . . without factual support in tendered affidavits, will not defeat a meritorious
application for summary judgment.” U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, 67
N.J. Super. 384, 399-400 (App.Div.1961). Likewise, unsupported and self-serving
statements, standing alone, are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.
Heyert v. Taddese, 431 N.J. Super. 388, 413-414 (App. Div. 2013). And the “non-moving

party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment merely by pointing to any fact in

dispute.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 529. Disputed issues of fact that are immaterial or of an
insubstantial nature will not suffice. Ibid. Rather, “[clompetent opposition requires
‘competent evidential material’ beyond mere ‘speculation’ and ‘fanciful arguments,”
Cortez v. Gindhart, 435 N.J. Super. 589, 605 (App. Div. 2014), certif. denied, 220 N.J.

269 (2015) (citation omitted), and the party opposing the motion “must do more than

simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Alfano v.
Schaud, 429 N.J. Super. 469, 474 (App. Div. 2013), certif. denied, 214 N.J. 119 (2013)

(citation omitted).

Against this backdrop, the Board contends that petitioner's claims relating to its
enrollment process are moot since it is undisputed that A.J.B. is currently enrolled in
Central High School. The Board further maintains that petitioner's claims regarding her
uncomfortable feelings toward the Board’s enrollment process and being taken
advantage of or disrespected during that process fail to state a claim for which relief can
be granted and that the relief sought by petitioner (i.e., the matter “needs attention” and

an investigation) also do not fall within the jurisdiction of this forum to award.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20

Based upon the foregoing facts and the applicable law, | CONCLUDE that the
matter is ripe for summary decision. Succinctly stated, there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact, and the claims set forth in the Petition are either moot, insufficient to
assert a justiciable claim for relief or outside my jurisdiction.

It is firmly established that “questions that have become moot or academic prior to
judicial scrutiny generally have been held to be an improper subject for judicial review.”
Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976); see Oxfeld v. New Jersey
State Board of Education, 68 N.J. 301, 303 (1975). An action is moot when it no longer

presents a justiciable controversy because the issues raised have become academic or

when a decision is sought on a matter which, when rendered, will have no practical effect
on the existing controversy. Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App.

Div. 2010). “[Flor reasons of judicial economy and restraint, courts will not decide cases
in which the issue is hypothetical, a judgment cannot grant effective relief, or the parties

do not have concrete adversity of interest.” Anderson, 143 N.J. Super. at 437.

In short, petitioner's claim regarding the enrollment process that she underwent on
behalf of her son in September 2020 is moot. It is undisputed that A.J.B. was enrolled in
Central High School and, therefore, no ongoing controversy relating to enrollment exists.
See Robinson v. State-Operated School Dist. of Paterson, EDU 09407-09, Initial
Decision, (December 14, 2010), adopted, Comm’r (January 25, 2011)
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, affd., 2011 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2832 (App.

Div. November 17, 2011) (dismissing as moot a student’s petition challenging a

suspension when no reference to the disciplinary incident existed in the student's records
and the student had already graduated). In addition, our courts have recognized that
where a petitioner is no longer subject to the force of school procedures or regulations, a
challenge to those procedures or regulations becomes academic and moot. See Oxfeld,
68 N.J. at 303. It is not the role of the Commissioner to function in the abstract or to enter
advisory rulings. See N.J. Civil Serv. Ass'n v. State of New Jersey, 88 N.J. 605, 611
(1982); Crescent Park Tenants Assoc. v Realty Eq. Corp. of New York, 58 N.J. 98,107
(1971). This matter also does not present any issue of great public importance compelling

a definitive resolution despite its mootness. Oxfeld, 68 N.J. at 303.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20

Further, for this matter to be justiciable before this forum, petitioner must have
suffered a distinct injury or harm that can be remedied by the Commissioner. See e.g.,

New Jersey Turnpike Auth. v. Parsons, 3 N.J. 235, 240 (1949). Petitioner's claims relating
to her feelings of discomfort toward the Board’s enrollment process and being taken
advantage or disrespected during that process do not state a cognizable claim for which
relief can be granted by this forum. This forum also lacks the jurisdiction to order an
investigation or somehow give the matter some type of broad attention as requested by
petitioner.

Based upon the foregoing, | CONCLUDE that dismissal of the Petition of Appeal

is warranted.

ORDER

It is ORDERED that respondent’s motion for summary decision be and hereby is
GRANTED and petitioner's Petition of Appeal be and hereby is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

| hereby FILE this initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

This recommended decision may be adopted, modified or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 10179-20

0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the

judge and to the other parties.

May 3, 2021 Wray}. ML Me nee?

U
DATE MARGERET M. MONXCO. ALJ
Date Received at Agency: May 3, 2021
Date Mailed to Parties: in U W2\
jb