R.C., on behalf of minor child, M.D. v. Board of Education of the Township of Springfield, Union County, 1/26/2024, (#82-24)

82-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 07430-23
Agency Dkt. No. 173-6/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
R.C., on behalf of minor child, M.D.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Springfield, Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), granting the respondent Board’s motion to dismiss, have been reviewed and considered.
The parties did not file exceptions.
The petitioner filed a pro se appeal challenging the Board’s determination that her
minor child, M.D., was not the victim of harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). The
matter was transmitted to the OAL for a hearing regarding the merits of the Board’s HIB
decision. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) scheduled three pre-conference hearings in this
case, none of which were attended by the petitioner despite having received appropriate notice
of each hearing date. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the matter must be dismissed with
prejudice, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4, for petitioner’s failure to appear three times for a court
proceeding without any explanation and for failure to provide the required written reply to the
Board’s motion to dismiss.

2
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the petition must be
dismissed. Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 26, 2024
Date of Mailing: January 31, 2024

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION GRANTING
MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07430-23
AGENCY DKT. NO.173-6/23
R.C. o/b/o MINOR CHILD, M.D.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF SPRINGFIELD, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
R.C. on behalf of M.D., petitioner pro se
Jaclyn M. Morgese, Esq. (Cornell, Merlino, McKeever & Osborne, attorneys,
for respondent)
Record Closed: January 8, 2024 	Decided: January 8, 2024
BEFORE ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner R.C. (Petitioner) appealed a finding by respondent that an act or acts of
HIP toward M.D. did not occur. According to the initial HIN 338 HIB reporting form filed

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07430-23
2
by petitioner, on February 17, 2020, an accusation was made about M.D. that she “to
carry a gun at the school, writing threating (sic) message on the message board of the
school. Student report on Instagram, snapshot and text messages that my daughter has
a list of people she wants to kill,” that classmates always made fun of the way she was
dressed and “give her names ‘prostitute’”. 	On April 25, 2023, respondent notified R.C.
that the Springfield Board of Education (BOE) affirmed the Superintendent’s decision that
an act of HIB did not occur. 	On June 23, 2023, R.C. on behalf of M.D. filed a pro se
Petition of Appeal of said decision with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education. On
August 14, 2023, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL for
hearing as a contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14f 1
to 13. On December 20, 2023, respondent filed a Notice of Motion, with a certification of
mailing to petitioner, with supporting affidavit, exhibits and legal brief, to Dismiss the
Appeal alleging R.C.’s nonparticipation in the proceedings since the matter was filed,
leading up to and culminating with R.C.’s failure to appear for a telephone Prehearing
Conference December 14, 2023. For the reasons which follow, I grant the respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss.
FACTS
All of the following facts are supported by respondent’s unopposed motion
certification and exhibits. Respondent’s Answer to the Petition of Appeal and affirmative
Defenses, dated July 27, 2023 (Exhibit C) note that petitioner’s appeal did not make
specific allegations but was a general appeal, and thus the Answer was also general. On
August 22, 2023, in order to quickly learn more of the case, petitioner and respondent
were notified via email that the undersigned (me/the court) would like to hold a prehearing
conference via telephone on any one of five specified dates and times between August
29, 2023, and September 22, 2023. 	Counsel for respondent replied the same day that
she was available on all of those five dates and times for the prehearing. (Exhibit E)
However, no reply was made by R.C. or anyone on her behalf. Accordingly, my assistant
asked again on September 14, 2023, that, the other proposed times for the conference
having passed, or having become unavailable that the September 22, 2023, date was still
available for a conference and to respond “ASAP” (Exhibit F).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07430-23
3
Instead of responding to my assistant, on September 20, 2023, Rumana Hussain
(R. Hussain), an assistant for Attorney Paul Fernandez, advised respondent’s attorney
that he represented R.C. and M.D. that Mr. Fernandez wanted to prepare for the
September 22 conferenced and asked respondent’s attorney what the case was about
(Exhibit G). 	On the same date, the petitioner’s counsel (Ms. Morgese) advised my
assistant of Mr. Fernandez’s involvement. 	On the following date, September 21, 2023,
at 8:56 a.m., my assistant wrote to R, Hussain, who had been communicating for him with
Ms. Morgese, and asked that counsel for R.C. send to her a letter of representation in this
OAL matter, and to confirm their presence at the conference the next day. 	However,
neither 	Ms. 	Hussain 	nor 	anyone 	else 	from 	Mr. 	Fernandez’s 	involvement 	replied.
Accordingly, the Prehearing had to be cancelled/adjourned. On September 28, 2023, my
assistant again wrote to R. Hussain, again asking his office to send a letter of
representation and confirm a new date for a prehearing conference. (Exhibit H)
On October 10, 2023, Mr. Fernandez’s office was again advised by my assistant
that I wanted to hold the prehearing conference at specific times on either October 17 or
October 20, 2023, and to please reply. While Ms. Morgese replied that she was available
on both dates and times, no reply was received by Mr. Fernandez. (Exhibit I). Morgese
Certification, paragraph 22.
On November 28, 2023, Ms. Morgese wrote to the Court to inquire as to reschedule
the prehearing conference as the respondent was interested in moving the case. 	On
December 7, 2023, having noted the previous attempts to schedule R.C., through her
attorney Mr. Fernandez, my assistant wrote to him noting the previous lack of response
and asking for an immediate reply by confirming his representation in this matter and his
availability for a prehearing conference. 	Mr. Fernandez replied the same day: 	“My
apologies. My firm declined to take the matter and [R.C.] was advised to attend all
hearings.” (Exhibit K) 	On December 7, 2023, at 3:38 p.m., my assistant wrote to R.C.
quoting my words:
Ms. [R.C.] has been unresponsive to prior attempts by the
Court to schedule a Prehearing, on September 22, 2023,
October 11, and other dates in which we insured of her
availability of that of a chosen attorney. We learned for certain

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07430-23
4
today that an attorney for [R.C.] was never retained. Please
be advised that a prehearing will be held by telephone on
December 14 at 10:30 a.m. If [R.C.] is not responsive and/or
does not attend with no good explanation provided before that
time. her Due Process request will be dismissed.
(Exhibit L).
On the same day, my assistant sent by regular mail a notice of the conference to
R.C. including the conference call in information (Court ‘s Exhibit A).
On December 14, 2023, at approximately 10:30 a.m. the Prehearing conference
was set to begin with, at that time only myself and Ms. Morgese on the line. 	With Ms.
Morgese listening on the conference line, I called R.C. at the phone number provided in
the Service list given to the OAL in the transmittal by the Commissioner. When a person
answered the phone, I identified myself what I was calling about, and asked for R.C. In
response, this individual hung up the phone. Morgese Certification, paragraphs 33-36.
LAW
If “after appropriate notice,” neither a party or representative of that party should
fail to appear “at any proceeding scheduled by the Clerk or judge” and after one day
having received no explanation for the nonappearance, the Court may return the matter
to the agency for appropriate disposition. 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.4. 	Additionally, “a. For
unreasonable failure to comply with any order of a judge or requirements of this chapter,
the judge May 1. Dismiss or grant the motion or application” N.J.A.C. 1:1-14.14
Here, respondent has filed with correct Notice and in compliance with the OAL’s
regulations a motion to dismiss with prejudice the petitioner’s appeal. 	Respondent’s
motion was filed December 20, 2023. 	Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.2 (b), the Petitioner
had ten days to file a response. 	Accordingly, the petitioner’s response was due
December 30, 2023. 	Not surprisingly, given R.C.’s palpable lack of interest, there has
been no reply and so the motion is unopposed. Out of an abundance of caution, I have
chosen to hold my decision until ten business days after the filing of the motion. Again,
unsurprisingly, there has been no response from this petitioner, who brazenly has not
only missed three court appearances, never retained a representative for her, never

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07430-23
5
communicated in any manner with the court nor had a representative do so over nearly
half a year, and who the evidence suggests, after failing to call in to the conference call,
actually hung up the phone on a judge who, in one final effort to get her to cooperate on
the third scheduled conference date attempted to call her. 	Even if the motion were not
unopposed, I can hardly imagine what can be said to justify this conduct worthy of strong
sanction. There is no question that the matter should be dismissed and with prejudice.
ORDER
Based upon all of the foregoing, I FIND that this matter should be and is hereby
DISMISSED 	WITH 	PREJUDICE, 	for 	petitioner’s 	willful 	noncompliance 	with 	the
requirements of the Rules of the OAL, specifically for three times failing to appear for a
court proceeding without any explanation, and for failure to provide the required written
reply to a motion to dismiss.
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 07430-23
6
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.
January 8, 2024
DATE 	ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 8, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	January 8, 2024
id