MA and EM obo AA v Ridgewood Village BOE | Case 12952-17 | 2019-03-27

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION SUMMARY DECISION OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12952-17 AGY REF NO. 2018/26817 M.A. AND E.M. ON BEHALF OF A.A., Petitioners, v. RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. _________________________________________ M.A. & E.M.. parents on behalf of minor child A.A., pro se Isabel Machado, Esq., for respondent (Machado Law Group, attorneys) Record Closed: March 25, 2019 Decided: March 27, 2019 BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ: STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners filed a request for a due process petition with the Office of Special Education Programs, New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12952-17 - 2 - The Department of Educatio n transmitted the contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B -1 to 15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14f -1 TO 13, to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on September 6, 2017. A prehearing conference was held on December 12, 2017 , and a prehearing order was entered by the undersigned on December 13, 2017. On November 12 , 2018, Lori M. Gaines , Esq., counsel for petitioners, filed a motion to be relieved as counsel. Requests for a response thereto were made to petitioners. No response as to the mot ion was received. Several emails were received from petitioner M.A., none of which responded to the motion to be relieved. Said motion was granted by Order dated November 20, 2018. Respondent filed a motion for summary decision, dated March 4, 2019. Petitioners were to file a response thereto on or before March 2 5, 2019 pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12-5(b). No response was filed by Petitioners. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A.A. is a twelve year old student who is classified as eligible for special education and related services under the category of autistic. 2. Respondent is the District responsible for A.A.’s education. 3. January 30, 2019 is the last day A.A. attended school in the District. 4. The District has been unable to contact Petitioners since that date. 5. On Februa ry 7, 2019 the District received information that Petitioners had moved. 6. Shortly thereafter Dr. Katie Kashmanian, Prinicipal of George Washington Middle School, was contacted by Ilene Chicas from the Divisio n of Child Protection and Permanency.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12952-17 - 3 - 7. Ms. Chicas informed Dr. Kashmanian that Petitioners had informed her, via email, they had moved out of state. 8. Petitioners no longer reside within the District. Upon information and belief the District believes that Petitioners are currently residing in Washington State. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported, the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such an application. Ibid. These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules. The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when v iewed in the light most favorable to the non -moving party . . . , are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995). And even if the non -moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one -sided that [the moving party] must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted). Respondent alleges the matter is moot as Petitioners no longer reside within the District, or the State of New Jersey. It is uncontroverted that Petitioners have moved to the State of Washington. Accordingly, there are no material facts in dispute and the matter is ripe for summary decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12952-17 - 4 - In Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp. ,i 415 N.J. Super. 301, 08, the New Jersey Supreme Court defines mootness as follows: ”We first set forth the principles that inform a consideration of claims of mootness. Mootness is a threshold justiciability determination rooted in the notion that judicial power is to be exercised only when a party is immediately threatened with harm. Jackson v. Dep’t of Corr. 335 N.J. Super 227, 231, 227, 762 A.2d 255 (App.Div. 2000), certif. denied, 167 N.J. 630, 772 A.2d 932 (2001). "A case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been resolved, at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation." DeVesa v. Dorsey, 134 N.J. 420, 428, 634 A.2d 493 (1993) (Pollock, J., concurring) (citing Oxfeld v. N.J. State Bd. of Educ., 68 N.J. 301,303, 344 A.2d. 769 (1975)).. To restate, "'an issue is "moot" when the decision sought in a matter, when rendered, can have no practical effect on the existing controversy.'" (citations omitted). In the instant matter Petitioners no longer reside in the District. They do not reside in the State of New Jersey. As the District is no longer responsible for the education of A.A., any decision would be moot as it would have no practical effect on the existing controversy. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Respondent’s motion for summary decision should be GRANTED. ORDER It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary decision is GRANTED; and, It is further ORDERED that Petitioners’ petition for due process be DISMISSED with prejudice. i The litigants in this matter are not related to the undersigned.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12952-17 - 5 - This decision is final pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (2018) and is appealable by filing a complaint and bringing a civil action either in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey or i n a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (2018). If the parent or adult student feels that this decision is not being fully implemented with respect to program or services, this concern should be communicated i n writing to the Directo r, Office of Special Education Programs. March 27, 2019 DATE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ Date Received at Agency Date Mailed to Parties:

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 12952-17 - 6 - APPENDIX List of Moving Papers For Petitioner: None For Respondent: Brief in support of the motion for summary decision Certification of Dr. Katie Kashmanian Certification of Kim Buxenbaum