F.E. v. Board of Education of Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, 10/27/2023, (#319-23)

319-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
F.E.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Petitioner appealed the April 2018 decision of respondent, Township of Piscataway Board of Education (Board), to
impose a one-year suspension on him for posting threatening messages on Instagram. On August 10, 2023, the
Board unconditionally expunged the disputed suspension from F.E.’s permanent record. 	Subsequently, on
August 22, 2023, the Board filed a motion to dismiss F.E.’s claim for mootness, which was opposed by
the petitioner.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: F.E. opposed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the relief he
requests is not an expungement but “a dismissal of the charges with unconditional apology”; 	F.E.’s
student records in the Piscataway School District no longer include any reference to the incident for which he
received discipline in March 2018; any claims petitioner might have had against the Piscataway School District
are now moot as the suspension of F.E. was expunged by the Board, and a plenary hearing in this matter would
have no practical effect on the outcome of the case. The ALJ concluded that the matter is now moot, and
petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ. Accordingly,
the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition 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. 01496-23
(EDU 00375-22 on Remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 182-7/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
F.E.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Piscataway, Middlesex 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 the
petition must be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, 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.
319-23
October 27, 2023
November 1, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
(ON 	REMAND 	FROM 	EDU
00375-22)
AGENCY DKT. NO. 182-7/18
F.E.,1
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF PISCATAWAY
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
__________________________
F.E., petitioner, pro se
David B. Rubin, Esq., for respondent (Attorney at Law, attorney)
Record Closed: September 15, 2023 	Decided: September 19, 2023
BEFORE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ:
1 This original petition in this matter was filed by B.E. while his son, F.E., was a minor. By certification dated
July 21, 2023, F.E., having reached the age of majority, stated that he would prosecute this case on his
own.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Petitioner, F.E., appeals the April 2018 decision of respondent, Township of Piscataway
Board of Education (Board), to impose a one-year suspension on him for, generally, posting
threatening messages on Instagram.
By motion the Board seeks dismissal of F.E.’s appeal on the grounds of mootness because
of the August 10, 2023, decision of the Board to unconditionally expunge the disputed suspension
from F.E.’s permanent record. 	F.E. opposes this motion on the grounds that he committed no
offense, and the expungement does not address his claim of innocence. I FIND that this matter is
moot and therefore, I CONCLUDE that the petition must be dismissed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 30, 2018, then-petitioner B.E. filed a petition of appeal with the Department of
Education’s Office of Special Education Policy and Dispute Resolution (OSEP). This matter was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed for hearing as a
contested case and docketed as EDU 11838-18, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
Prior to the 2018-2019 school year, B.E. disenrolled F.E. from the Piscataway
School District (District) and enrolled him at a private school. 	On respondent Board’s
motion, the petition was dismissed on the grounds that with F.E.’s removal from the
District, the Commissioner no longer had jurisdiction to consider the appeal. This decision
was reversed on January 4, 2019. The Commissioner remanded the matter to the OAL
for further proceedings but failed to transmit the remand until January 2022. The remand
was docketed as EDU 00375-22.
Prior to hearing in EDU 00375-22, the parties negotiated a settlement of all issues
in dispute but, on August 30, 2022, Chinemerem Njoku, Esq., then-counsel for B.E.,
notified me that B.E. refused to settle on the terms he previously agreed to and therefore,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
3
Mr. Njoku moved to be relieved as counsel. An order approving Mr. Njoku’s withdrawal
from this matter was issued on September 23, 2022.
In a telephone prehearing conference on September 9, 2023, B.E. stated that he
intended to proceed to a hearing, but then failed to appear at two subsequent telephone
conferences without notice or explanation. By Initial Decision Dismissal, dated December
20, 2022, the petition was dismissed for failure to prosecute. This decision was reversed
by the Commissioner and the matter was remanded to the OAL for further proceedings,
where it was docketed as EDU 01496-23.
On or about April 2023, B.E. moved to amend the petition to add claims for
reimbursement of private school tuition and for attorneys’ fees. 	On May 10, 2023, after
obtaining an extension of the filing deadline, the Board filed its objections to the motion
to amend and a cross-motion for summary decision. Following an order issued to resolve
a dispute over discovery, B.E. responded in the form of an amended motion on June 29,
2023.
By order dated July 14, 2023, both the motion of B.E. to amend his petition and
the motion of the Board for summary decision were denied and B.E. was ordered to obtain
the consent of F.E., who was now over the age of eighteen, to pursue his claim against
the Board. 	By certification dated July 21, 2023, F.E. stated that he would represent
himself in this matter “because [he is] of the age of majority, direct victim of the [Board’s]
decision, and [has] full knowledge of the case[.]”
On August 11, 2023, counsel for the Board notified me and petitioner that the
Board unconditionally expunged the discipline issued to F.E. that is the subject of this
matter. 	My chambers notified F.E. that he had the option to withdraw his petition
challenging the suspension or to appear for the previously scheduled August 21, 2023,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
4
telephone conference. 	F.E. did neither and failed to contact my chambers or opposing
counsel to explain.2
On August 22, 2023, the Board filed a motion to dismiss F.E.’s claim for mootness.
F.E. submitted his opposition to the motion on September 5, 2023; the Board replied the
same day. On September 15, 2023, the Board submitted proof of the Board’s action and
the motion to dismiss is now ripe for review.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Based on undisputed statements found in the documents filed in this matter (and
the related matters which preceded it) to date, I FIND as FACTS:
1. 	On March 29, 2018, the District Superintendent issued F.E. a one-year
suspension from Piscataway High School (PHS) for creating a terroristic threat,
cyberbullying, and disruption of school. 	At the time, F.E. was under eighteen
years old.
2. 	In April 2018, following a hearing, the Board modified F.E.’s suspension to
maintain F.E. on home instruction through the end of the 2017-2018 school
year, to assign F.E. to the District’s in-school PS3 Program for the first two
marking periods of the 2018-2019 school year, and to return F.E. to the general
education program in the third marking period on specific conditions, including
counseling and community service.
3. 	F.E. completed the 2017-2018 school year, and began the 2018-2019 school
year, at Bishop George Ahr High School (renamed as St. Thomas Aquinas High
School), a private parochial school. F.E. did not return to PHS and graduated
from St. Thomas Aquinas High School in June 2020.
2 In his brief opposing the motion to dismiss, F.E. apologized for missing the telephone conference due to
“my network issue that affected my emails and other social media messages.” 	Ltr. Br. of Petitioner
(September 5, 2023), at 1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
5
4. 	F.E. is now more than eighteen years old.
5. 	On 	August 	10, 	2023, 	the 	Board 	voted 	to 	unconditionally 	expunge 	the
suspension of March 29, 2018, from F.E.’s permanent record at PHS. 	See
Certification of Dr. Frank Ranelli, Superintendent of Schools, and the revised
copy of F.E.’s disciplinary record.
6. 	The Board moves to dismiss this matter on the grounds that the sole issue,
whether the discipline imposed on F.E. in March 2018 was appropriate, is moot.
7. 	F.E. opposes the motion to dismiss on the grounds that the relief he requests
is not an expungement but “a dismissal of the charges with unconditional
apology.” Ltr. Br. of Petitioner, at 2.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
An action is moot when the decision sought “can have no practical effect on the existing
controversy.” Redd v. Bowman, 223 N.J. 87, 104 (2015). For reasons of judicial economy and
restraint, it is appropriate to refrain from decision-making when an issue presented is hypothetical,
judgment cannot grant effective relief, or the parties do not have a concrete adversity of interest.
Anderson v. Sills, 143 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (Ch. Div. 1976); Fox v. Twp. of E. Brunswick Bd. of
Educ., EDU 10067-98, Initial Decision (March 19, 1999), aff’d. (Comm’r May 3, 1999); J.L. and
K.D. ex rel. J.L. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Educ., EDS 13858-13, Final Decision (January 28, 2014).
In P.S. ex rel. I.S. v. Edgewater Park Twp. Bd. of Educ., EDS 10418-04, Final Decision
(October 31, 2005), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/, a parent filed for due process due
to a disagreement over a district’s proposed placement of her child, and requested a different,
approved private school. The district had agreed to the parent’s placement request and moved
to dismiss the petition as moot. The parent wanted to continue the hearing to resolve other
related disagreements, but the ALJ concluded that the relief sought by the parent had already
been granted by the district through their agreement to place the child at her requested school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
6
The ALJ dismissed the petition as moot and reasoned that the parents had the right to file a
new due process petition regarding other issues with the district.
In a case similar to this one, student S.D. was suspended for alleged use of drugs in
school; approximately one year later, after a petition had been filed challenging the Board’s
decision to uphold the discipline, the Board expunged the discipline. 	D.W. on behalf of S.D.
v. Bridgewater-Raritan Regional School District, OAL Dkt. No. 11438-19, Initial Decision (July
29, 2020), aff’d. (Comm’r. September 11, 2020). The ALJ concluded that since no record of
the suspension remained in the student’s file, there was no relief which the judge could
provide, and he dismissed the case as moot. On review, the Commissioner concurred “that
petitioner’s claim is moot because the suspension imposed by the Board on S.D. has been
expunged.”
A review of the facts here leads to the conclusion that no issue remains as to which
judgment can grant effective relief. 	F.E.’s student records in the Piscataway School District
include no reference to the incident for which he received discipline in March 2018. 	For this
reason, I CONCLUDE that a due process hearing on a challenge to a decision of the Board for
which there is no record would be a hypothetical exercise.3
Based on the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the petition should be dismissed with
prejudice because the sole issue raised is now moot.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I ORDER that the motion of respondent Township of
Piscataway Board of Education to dismiss the petition of F.E. for mootness is GRANTED
and F.E.’s petition challenging the discipline imposed on him by respondent in March 2018
is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3 F.E. is aware that he may seek the financial damages to which he believes he is entitled in another forum.
See Petitioner’s Br. at 2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 01496-23
7
I 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 initial 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, P.O. Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked "Attention: Exceptions." A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge
and to the other parties.
September 19, 2023
DATE 	TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TMC/kl/mph