C.P. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ.
| Decision Date | 22 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-12807 |
| Parties | C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor child; D.O., individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor child; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor child; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor child; JOHN and JANE DOE, individually and on behalf of their minor child, JAMES DOE; Y.H.S. and H.Y., individually and on behalf of their minor child, C.H.S.; J.M. and E.M. on behalf of their minor children, C.M. and E.M.; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M.; ROBERTA ROE, on behalf of her minor child ROBIN ROE; E.P., individually and on behalf of her minor child, Ea.P; and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and LAMONT REPOLLET, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN
REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-1810
LISA MARIE QUARTAROLO
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849
DAVID R. GILES
SOUTH ORANGE, NJ 07079
DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER
LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC
5 DUXBURY CT
PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ 08550-2137
DONALD A. SOUTAR
JOHN RUE AND ASSOCIATES
SPARTA, NJ 07871
JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN
WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC
SUITE 120
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
KRISTA LYNN HALEY
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
37 MAIN ST.
SPARTA, NJ 07871
SARAN QIANA EDWARDS
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
SPARTA, NJ 07871
JOHN DOUGLAS RUE
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
SUITE 206
Counsel for Plaintiffs C.P., individually and on behalf of F.P., a minor; D.O., individually and on behalf of M.O., a minor; A.S., individually and on behalf of A.A.S., a minor; S.B.C., individually and on behalf of C.C., a minor; John Doe, individually and on behalf of James Doe, a minor; JaneDoe, individually and on behalf of James Doe, a minor; Y.H.S., individually and on behalf of C.H.S., a minor; H.Y., individually and on behalf of C.H.S., a minor; J.M., individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor; E.M., individually and on behalf of C.M., a minor; M.M., individually and on behalf of K.M., a minor.
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
THREE GATEWAY CENTER
NEWARK, NJ 07102
DAVID DANA CRAMER
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
THREE GATEWAY CENTER
NEWARK, NJ 07102
ZAHIRE DESIREE ESTRELLA-CHAMBERS
WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
THREE GATEWAY CENTER
NEWARK, NJ 07102
CATHERINE MERINO REISMAN
REISMAN CAROLLA GRAN & ZUBA LLP
HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033-1810
LISA MARIE QUARTAROLO
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849
DAVID R. GILES
SOUTH ORANGE, NJ 07079
DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER
LAW OFFICE OF DENISE LANCHANTIN DWYER LLC
5 DUXBURY CT
PRINCETON JUNCTION, NJ 08550-2137
DONALD A. SOUTAR
JOHN RUE AND ASSOCIATES
SPARTA, NJ 07871
JEFFREY IAN WASSERMAN
WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC
SUITE 120
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
KRISTA LYNN HALEY
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
37 MAIN ST.
SPARTA, NJ 07871
SARAN QIANA EDWARDS
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
SPARTA, NJ 07871
JOHN DOUGLAS RUE
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
SUITE 206
Counsel for Plaintiffs J.M., individually and on behalf of E.M., a minor; E.M., individually and on behalf of C.M., a minor.
WASSERMAN LEGAL LLC
SUITE 120
FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932
JOHN DOUGLAS RUE
JOHN RUE & ASSOCIATES
SUITE 206
LAKE HOPATCONG, NJ 07849
Counsel for Plaintiff Roberta Roe.
AIMEE BLENNER
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TRENTON, NJ 08625
KERRY SORANNO
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TRENTON, NJ 08625
LAUREN AMY JENSEN
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TRENTON, NJ 08625
Counsel for Defendants.
JENNIFER N. ROSEN VALVERDE
EDUCATION LAW CENTER
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Counsel for Amici Curiae SPAN Parent Advocacy Network; Advocates for Children of New Jersey; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Disability Rights New Jersey; Educational Law Center; NJ Special Education Practitioners; Volunteer Lawyers for Justice; Esther Canty-Barnes, Esq.; and Jennifer N. Rosen Valverde, Esq.
Plaintiffs,1 a putative class of disabled minor children andtheir parents, seek injunctive relief from what they allege is New Jersey's systemic mishandling of special education dueprocess petitions, in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. The New Jersey Department of Education ("NJDOE") and its commissioner, Lamont Repollet ("Repollet") (collectively, "Defendants"), move to dismiss Plaintiffs' action (ECF No. 90) (the "Motion"). In deciding Defendants' Motion, the Court benefits greatly from the parties' extensive briefing and thorough oral advocacy on the matter. Additionally, the Court has received briefing and oral advocacy from amici curiae SPAN Parent Advocacy Network; Advocates for Children of New Jersey; Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates; Disability Rights New Jersey; Educational Law Center; NJ Special Education Practitioners; Volunteer Lawyers for Justice; Esther Canty-Barnes, Esq.; and Jennifer N. Rosen Valverde, Esq. Equipped with the positions of all interested parties, for the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
The Court also has several additional motions pending before it. First, there is a motion by Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs' first amended complaint (ECF No. 28). Because the second amended complaint supersedes the first amended complaint, and because the parties have fully briefed the present Motion, the Court will deny as moot Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Next the Court has before it (1)Plaintiffs' motion for class certification (ECF No. 30), (2) Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin further violations of the IDEA (ECF No. 31), and (3) Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants from promulgating and enforcing certain rules and regulations that Plaintiffs contend would cause additional violations of the IDEA. Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and for preliminary injunctive relief will be addressed separately, and in due course.
On May 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in this matter (ECF No. 1). Shortly thereafter, on August 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (ECF No. 21). On October 15, 2019, Defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint (ECF No. 28). On October 25, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for class certification (ECF No. 30) and simultaneously moved for the first of two preliminary injunctions (ECF No. 31). On January 29, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for a second preliminary injunction on separate grounds (ECF No. 69). The parties fully briefed each of these motions, and on February 18, 2020, the Court entertained oral argument on them. That hearing was continued on March 2, 2020. During oral argument on February 18, 2020, for reasons expressed on the record, the Court invited Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint to more fullyexplain certain factual allegations; Plaintiffs did so on February 27, 2020 (ECF No. 78) (the "Second Amended Complaint" or "2AC").
On March 26, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 90). On April 9, 2020, Plaintiffs opposed Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 95). As such, Defendants' Motion is fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
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. 20 U.S.C. § 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" thatparticipating public schools must comply with. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(6)(A); 20 U.S.C. § 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." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6). Once a due process complaint has been filed, Congress has set strict deadlines by which certain events must occur. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii) (); 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) (); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(j) (same). Those deadlines are at the heart of this action.
Beginning with the date the due process complaint is filed, the parties have thirty days within which to settle or otherwise resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the parent and child. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b). This period is referred to as the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial