B.E., on behalf of F.E. v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, Middlesex County, 1/26/2023, (#23-23)

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00375-22
Agency Dkt. No. 182-7/18
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
B.E., on behalf of minor child, 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.
Petitioner challenges a suspension imposed by the Board on his minor child.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) scheduled a telephone conference regarding petitioner’s
appeal for October 12, 2022. Petitioner failed to appear and did not respond to an email asking
him to explain his failure to appear. A telephone conference was then scheduled for
November 14, 2022. Petitioner again failed to appear and did not respond to an email asking
him to explain his failure to appear. Therefore, the ALJ dismissed the matter based on
petitioner’s failure to pursue the appeal.
Upon review, the Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ that the matter should be
dismissed based on petitioner’s failure to appear. The Initial Decision indicates that the
scheduling notices were sent to the parties via email. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-9.5(c), scheduling
23-23

2
notices must be sent by regular mail unless emergent needs require otherwise. There is no
indication in the record that the telephone conferences were emergent; to the contrary, the
notices were emailed to the parties a month prior to the scheduled dates. Moreover, while
sending scheduling notices via email may be acceptable in many circumstances, such as in cases
where all parties or attorneys routinely communicate with the OAL via email, those
circumstances are not present here. The record does not contain a single email from petitioner
to the OAL. Furthermore, the Initial Decision specifically indicates that there was a concern
about the correct spelling of petitioner’s email address, and the scheduling notices were
therefore sent to four separate email addresses. Given the lack of certainty that petitioner ever
received the scheduling notices, the Commissioner finds that dismissal at this juncture is not
appropriate.1
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the OAL for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 If the scheduling notices were sent to petitioner via regular mail, the ALJ may clarify that fact on remand.
January 26, 2023
January 26, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00375-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 182/7/18
B.E. ON BEHALF OF F.E.,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF PISCATAWAY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, MIDDLESEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
B.E., petitioner, pro se
David B. Rubin, Esq., for respondent
Record Closed: November 16, 2022 	Decided: December 20, 2022
BEFORE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ
On May 1, 2018, the Township of Piscataway, Board of Education (Board) issued
a decision suspending then-student F.E. for a portion of the next school year as discipline
for conduct occurring on March 14, 2018. 	On or about July 30, 2018, B.E. on behalf of
then-minor child F.E. filed a petition with the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department
of Education appealing the suspension. 	This matter was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on August 16, 2018, as a contested case

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00375-22
2
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:154B-1 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 et seq. and docketed as
EDU 11838-18.
Prior to the 2018–2019 school year, petitioner B.E. withdrew F.E. from Piscataway
High School and enrolled him in a private school. On October 15, 2018, the Board filed
a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction or alternately, for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted. Following the filing of responsive briefs, an initial
decision was issued on November 20, 2018, granting the motion to dismiss.
On January 4, 2019, the Commissioner issued a final decision reversing the initial
decision and remanding the matter for further proceedings at the OAL. 	On January 11,
2022, in response to an inquiry from Board counsel, the Director of the Office of
Controversies and Disputes stated that her office failed to transmit the matter back to the
OAL. Petitioner elected to pursue the matter and the matter on remand was transmitted
to the OAL, docketed as EDU 00375-22, and assigned to me on January 20, 2022.
The parties appeared for a telephone prehearing conference on February 28,
2022, and stated that they would engage in negotiations toward settlement. On or about
June 10, 2022, the parties stated that they had reached agreement on settlement but, on
August 30, 2022, counsel for petitioner stated that his client had withdrawn his consent
to settle. During a telephone conference on September 9, 2022, which was attended by
B.E., counsel stated that he would file a formal request to be relieved as counsel. Neither
respondent nor B.E. objected to this request. 	On September 23, 2022, an order was
entered relieving the Law Firm of C.N. Njoku, LLC, as counsel to B.E. on behalf of F.E.
During the September 9, 2022, status conference, B.E. stated his intention to retain new
counsel within thirty days and a telephone conference was scheduled for October 12,
2022. Notice of the October 12, 2022, telephone conference was sent to the parties on
September 12, 2022. 	A dial-in number was provided. 	Due to concern for the correct

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00375-22
3
spelling of B.E.’s email address, the notice was sent to four separate emails and to his
former counsel. The notice stated in bold print:
Failure to dial in for the telephone conference will result
in the file being returned to the transmitting agency for
appropriate action which may include imposition of the
proposed penalty or granting the relief requested by the
other party.
B.E. failed to appear for the October 12, 2022, telephone conference. B.E. failed
to notify my office in advance or to request an adjournment. 	On October 14, 2022, an
email was sent to B.E. asking him to explain his failure to appear. B.E. did not respond.
On October 14, 2022, notice was sent to the parties of a telephone status
conference on November 14, 2022. A dial-in number was provided. B.E. failed to appear
for the November 14, 2022, telephone conference. 	B.E. failed to notify my office in
advance or to request an adjournment. 	On November 15, 2022, an email was sent to
B.E. asking him to explain his failure to appear. B.E. did not respond.
Absent exigent circumstances, a petitioner’s failure to prosecute a matter should
result in its dismissal. Henderson v. Jersey Central Power and Light Company, Dkt. No.
PUC 2470-10, Initial Decision (January 5, 2011) http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/ new-jersey-
administrative-decisions-0 (citations omitted).
Here, 	neither 	exigent 	circumstances 	nor, 	for 	that 	matter, 	any 	explanation
whatsoever, has been offered to excuse petitioner’s failure to prosecute this matter.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00375-22
4
DECISION AND ORDER
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to prosecute its appeal and no
longer requests relief in this matter. Therefore, I ORDER that this case be and is hereby
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.
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 20, 2022
DATE 	TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TMC/nn