Mary Leonard v. Board of Education of the City of Plainfield, Union County, 1/22/20, (#29-20)

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08998-19
Agency Dkt. No. 55-3/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Mary Leonard,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Plainfield,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon such review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge that the
petition should be dismissed for failure to provide timely responses to discovery requests. 	Petitioner
indicated on a conference call that she had no intention of responding to the Board’s discovery requests or
replying to the Board’s motion to dismiss for failure to answer discovery.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter for the reasons expressed therein, and the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 22, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	January 23, 2020
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008,
c. 36 (N.J.S.A 18A:6-9.1).
29-20

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08998-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 55-3/19
MARY LEONARD,
Petitioner,
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF PLAINFIELD, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________
Mary Leonard, Petitioner, pro se
Amy A. Pujara, Esq., for Respondents, (DiFrancesco, Bateman, Kunzman,
Davis, Lehrer & Flaum, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 18, 2019 	Decided: December 19, 2019
BEFORE: THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a petition with the New Jersey Department of Education’s Office of
Controversies and Disputes on May 29, 2019.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on July 2, 2019, as a contested case.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08998-19
2
A prehearing conference was held on July 12, 2019. 	A prehearing order was
entered on July 15, 2019.
The matter was scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2019. 	Respondent
requested that the matter be adjourned to permit it to file a motion to dismiss for failure
to provide discovery. 	The adjournment was granted. 	Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to provide discovery on October 25, 2019. Petitioner failed to provide
a 	response thereto, or 	otherwise 	communicate with 	the OAL or the attorney for
respondent.
The 	undersigned 	scheduled 	a 	telephone 	conference 	with 	the 	parties 	for
December 4, 2019, at 12:15 p.m. 	The telephone conference was initiated by the OAL.
Petitioner failed to answer the telephone.
Thereafter 	the 	undersigned 	scheduled 	a 	second 	telephone 	conference 	for
December 18, 2019 at 3:30 p.m. 	That conference was held and was done on the
record.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
The prehearing order entered on July 15, 2019 required that all discover be
completed on or before August 30, 2019.
Respondent 	propounded 	interrogatories 	and 	a 	request 	for 	production 	of
documents upon petitioner on August 6, 2019. 	On September 30, 2019 respondent
forwarded a letter to petitioner requesting a response to the discovery request.
Petitioner has not responded to the discovery request of respondent.
Respondent filed a motion for dismissal for failure to answer the discovery
request. Petitioner failed to respond to said motion, or otherwise move before the OAL.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08998-19
3
During the course of the telephone conference of December 18, 2019, petitioner
made it abundantly clear that she had no intention of either providing a response to the
discovery request of respondent, or of responding to the motion.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
N.J.A.C. 1:1-10.5 provides:
By motion of a party or on his or her own motion, a judge
may impose sanctions pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.14 and
14.15 for failure to comply with the requirements of this
subchapter. 	Before 	imposing 	sanctions, 	the 	judge 	shall
provide an opportunity to be heard.
An Administrative law judge has power to impose reasonable monetary sanctions
on attorneys as representatives of parties. In re Timofai Sanitation Co., Inc. Discovery
Dispute, 252 N.J. Super. 495 (A.D. 1991)
Before 	an 	administrative 	law 	judge 	could 	impose 	sanctions 	for 	violating 	a
discovery order, court was required to conduct evidentiary hearing and make findings of
fact. 	In re Timofai Sanitation Co., Inc. Discovery Dispute, 252 N.J. Super. 495 (A.D.
1991).
N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.14 states:
(a) For unreasonable failure to comply with any order of a
judge or with any requirements of this chapter, the judge
may:
1. Dismiss or grant the motion or application;
2. Suppress a defense or claim;
3. Exclude evidence;
4. Order costs or reasonable expenses, including attorney's
fees, to be paid to the State of New Jersey or an aggrieved
representative or party; or
5. Take other appropriate case-related action.
A prehearing order was entered in this matter on July 15, 2019. 	The discovery
end date set forth in said order was August 30, 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08998-19
4
In the instant matter there was no explanation offered as to why discovery went
unanswered. The failure to provide requested discovery has caused the adjournment of
the hearing date. 	It has also caused the instant motion to dismiss to be filed. 	This, in
turn, has caused respondent to incur unnecessary counsel fees.
At the telephone conference of December 18, 2019, the petitioner made it clear
she did not intend to either provide discovery or answer the pending motion. 	The
telephone conference was petitioner’s “opportunity to be heard” pursuant to N.J.A.C.
1:1-10.5.
Given the above, the undersigned has no choice but to grant the motion to
dismiss.
Based upon the above, I CONCLUDE that respondent’s motion to dismiss should
be GRANTED.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to provide
timely responses to discovery requests is GRANTED; and,
It is further ORDERED that petitioner’s petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08998-19
5
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
08625-0500, marked “Attention: Exceptions.” A copy of any exceptions must be sent to
the judge and to the other parties.
December 19, 2019 	_____________________________
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08998-19
6
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
Motion to dismiss for failure to provide discovery
Letter brief in support of motion to dismiss for failure to provide
discovery
Certification of Amy A. Pujara, Esq. with Exhibits A and B