C.B., on behalf of minor children, A.J.B. and J.B. v. Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County, 4/12/2022, (#68-22)

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 07594-2021
Agency Dkt. No. 123-8/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
C.B., on behalf of minor children,
A.J.B. and J.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark,
Essex 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.
The petition in this matter is the seventh filed by petitioner concerning her minor children.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that the
allegations made in the current petition have all been raised in previous petitions that were
dismissed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ, for the reasons
thoroughly detailed in the Initial Decision, that petitioner’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res
judicata and/or are untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). Furthermore, to the extent that any
claims not barred for those reasons have been raised, they are so vague as to fail to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
68-22

2
Accordingly, the Board’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the petition of appeal is
hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1.
Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date
of mailing of this decision.
April 12, 2022
April 12, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-2021
AGENCY DKT. NO. 123-8/21
C.B. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN,
A.J.B. AND J.B.
Petitioner,
v.
CITY OF NEWARK BOARD OF
EDUCATION, ESSEX COUNTY,
Respondent.
C.B., pro se
Bernard Mercado, Esq. for respondent (Senior Associate Counsel, Office of the
General Counsel, Newark Public Schools)
Record Closed: March 15, 2022 	Decided: March 17, 2022
BEFORE: MATTHEW G. MILLER, ALJ
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
2
Petitioner, C.B., the parent of minor children A.J.B. and J.B., has filed a petition
concerning access policies to Newark public schools, registration protocols at Central
High School (where A.J.B. formerly1 attended) and what appears to be the alleged
misclassification of J.B. and for said misclassification to be removed from his transcript.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By letter dated August 3, 2021, Petitioner contacted the Commissioner of the
Department of Education, asking that multiple matters “be review(ed)”. This request was
marked “Filed” by the Commissioner on August 11, 2021 and Respondent filed an Answer
with the Commissioner on August 30, 2021. 	The Department transmitted this matter to
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on September 7, 2021, for a hearing as a
contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
An initial conference was ultimately held on October 29, 2021, which was followed
by a second conference on December 10, 2021, after which Respondent filed a Motion
to Dismiss. Following a conference on March 3, 2022, the record was held open briefly
for the supplying of additional materials and was ultimately closed on March 15, 2022.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
C.B. OAL Filing History
This matter is the seventh petition filed by C.B. concerning J.B. and/or A.J.B.
1. 	C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. 	v. City of Newark BOE, Essex
Co./Weaver, 	Deborah; 	Montes, 	Kishanda; 	Duke 	Jackson
Kathy and Spring, Sakinah (EDU 10368-2018). 	This matter
was transmitted to the OAL on or about June 12, 2018 and
concerned a demand that J.B. be promoted to 8 th grade which
arose out of September, 2017 meetings with Lincoln School
1 While this issue in not raised in this motion, the Court understands that A.J.B. is currently enrolled at West Side
High School in Newark and not at Newark Central.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
3
officials. 	This petition was voluntarily withdrawn by C.B. on or
about September 28, 2018. (Exhibits R-A and R-B)
2. 	C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v. City of Newark BOE, Essex
County (EDU 14526-2018). 	This matter was transmitted on an
emergent basis to the OAL on October 4, 2018 and concerned a
request to remove false and/or sensitive information from J.B.’s
school records, that he be issued a diploma and from his middle
school and that he be placed in the 10 th grade. This petition was
voluntarily withdrawn by C.B. on October 3, 2018.2 (Exhibits R-
C and R-D)
3. 	C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v. Board of Education of the City
of 	Newark, 	Essex 	County 	(EDU 	04507-2019), 	aff’d
Commissioner of Education (February 20, 2020). This matter
was transmitted to the OAL on April 1, 2019 and concerned a
complaint that J.B. was wrongfully retained in 7th grade in 2017-
18. 	In a January 16, 2020 decision, Ernest M. Bongiovanni,
A.L.J. found that;
a. 	The petition was time barred since it was filed in
violation of the ninety day appellate time limitation of
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i).
b. 	The claims made in the petition were moot, since they
concerned J.B.’s retention in the 7th grade in 2017-18
and he was now in the 9 th grade in the 2019-20 school
year.
c. 	The balance of the claims were “at best a jumble of
vague ideas and notions”, which, even if they were
cognizable, would be time barred as well.
The 	Initial 	Decision 	was 	adopted 	by 	the 	Commissioner 	of
Education in a Final Decision dated February 20, 2020, ruling that
the claims were time barred. (Exhibits R-E and R-F)
4. 	C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. 	v. City of Newark Board of
Education 	(EDU 	17293-2019), 	aff’d, 	Commissioner 	of
Education (October 19, 2020). 	This matter was transmitted to
the OAL on December 9, 2019 and concerned a complaint
regarding 	access 	to 	the 	Lincoln 	Elementary 	School, 	the
promotion policy “put in place by the district regarding 8 grade
graduation” and the district’s suspension policy. In a September
2, 2020 decision, Thomas Betancourt, A.L.J. dismissed the
petition as being time barred by N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). 	The Initial
2 While the dates may be confusing, it appears as if the Petition was actually filed on October 1 and withdrawn on
October 3.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
4
Decision was adopted by the Commissioner of Education in an
October 19, 2020 Final Decision. (Exhibits R-G and R-H)
5. 	C.B. o/b/o minor child, A.J.B. 	v. City of Newark Board of
Education, 	Essex 	County 	(EDU 	10179-2020), 	aff’d,
Commissioner of Education (June 15, 2021). This matter was
transmitted to the OAL on October 6, 2020 and concerned a
complaint regarding the online process of enrolling A.J.B. at
Central High School. In an April 21, 2021 decision, Margaret M.
Monaco, A.L.J. dismissed the petition as moot, since A.J.B. was
now enrolled in Central and there was no ongoing dispute. The
Initial Decision was adopted by the Commissioner of Education
in a June 15, 2021 Final Decision. (Exhibits R-I and R-J)
6. 	C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. 	v. BOE of the City of Newark
(EDU 04337-2021). 	This matter was transmitted to the OAL in
March, 2021 and concerned multiple complaints regarding J.B.’s
registration 	and 	treatment 	at 	what 	appears 	to 	be 	Newark
Vocational High School in October, 2020 and February, 2021.
Per an August 11, 2021 letter from Judge Monaco, this matter
was withdrawn by C.B. via letter dated July 3, 2021. (Exhibits R-
K and R-L)
7. 	C.B. o/b/o minor children, A.J.B. and J.B. v. City of Newark
BOE, Essex County (EDU 07594-2021) (current case). 	As
noted 	above, 	this 	matter 	was 	transmitted 	to 	the 	OAL 	on
September 7, 2021 and concerns three issues; 1. the access
issues raised in EDU 17293-2019; 2. the enrollment issues raised
in 	EDU 10179-2020, and; 3. the 	“fraudulent faisfying (sic)3
mis()classification on J.B.” with a request that “this matter to be
removed from (his) school transcript record”, which appear to be
the same issues raised in EDU 10368-2018. (Exhibit C-1)
Current Petition
In her current petition, C.B. specifically relates the access issues back to her earlier
petition [“(t)his matter relates to the 2018-2019 petition”]. She also specifically relates the
enrollment issue to an earlier petition [(t)hese…matter() relates to the 2020-2021
petition]”. (Exhibit C-1).
3 I believe that this word is meant to be “falsifying”.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
5
While she does not relate the “misclassification” aspect of the petition back to the
2018 filing, the issues raised are identical.
The allegations raised in the petition read as follows4;
1. 	This matter relates to the 2018-2019 petition (regarding) Newark Public
Schools’ 	policies 	on 	visitor 	ID 	scanner, 	attendance, 	promotion,
suspension…these matters have been dismissed without being heard.
2. 	These matters…relate to the 2020-2021 petition regarding NPS C.B.,
minor child (A.L.B). The issue is that the Newark Public School wanted
(me) to register personal information online to enroll A.J.B so he can go
to Central High School in Newark NJ which I disagree. This matter was
dismissed without being heard.
3. 	This matter relates to the fraudulent, falsifying misclassification on J.B..
I am asking for this matter to be removed from (his) school transcript
record.5
MOTION
Respondent has filed a motion for to dismiss in lieu of an answer per N.J.A.C.
1:1 et seq. and N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g), making a three-fold argument;
1. 	That the allegations contained within the subject petition “have
previously already been adjudicated both by the OAL and the New
Jersey Department of Education and are therefore barred by the
doctrine of res judicata.
2. 	That the petition is time barred in that Petitioner failed to comply
with the ninety day time limit encoded in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) to
appeal Respondent’s decisions.
3. 	That the petition fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
4 Minor spelling and grammatical corrections have been made for clarity. The full document is attached as Exhibit
C1.
5 While this issue in not raised in this motion, the Court understands that J.B. is no longer enrolled in the Newark
school system.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
6
The only opposition to the motion filed by C.B. consisted of a single page in which
she reiterated her disagreement with Respondent’s policies on attendance and identification
and that they were instituted without notification to parents and asking that the information
concerning J.B. be removed from his record. She also advised that she would not be bullied.
No legal arguments were propounded. (Exhibit C-2).
A reply brief from Respondent highlighted Petitioner’s lack of legal argument and
reiterated the positions espoused in its original moving papers. (Exhibit C-3).
A Motion to Dismiss per N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.5(g) is the functional equivalent of a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim filed in civil court per N.J.Ct.R. 4:6-2(e).
Graves v. State Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark & Cami Anderson, 2017 N.J. Super.
Unpub. LEXIS 2417. The Court stated the standard for the granting of same;
When reviewing a Rule 4:6-2(e) motion, a court must determine the
adequacy of 	the 	pleading and decide 	whether 	a 	cause 	of 	action 	is
"suggested" by the facts. Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp.,
116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989) (quoting Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109
N.J. 189, 192 (1988)). The court must "search[] the complaint in depth and
with liberality to ascertain whether the fundament of a cause of action may
be gleaned even from an obscure statement of claim, opportunity being
given to amend if necessary." Ibid. (quoting Di Cristofaro v. Laurel Grove
Mem'l Park, 43 N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1957)).
Id. at 7.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Petitioner
None. 	At best, C.B. infers in her petition that her claims have never received a
proper hearing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
7
Respondent
As noted above, Respondent makes two primary arguments in support of
the dismissal of Petitioner’s claims.
First, it argues that this petition is simply a rehash of the claims made in the first
six petitions, all of which have either been withdrawn, dismissed, found to be moot or
insufficiently pled so as to form a justiciable claim upon which relief can be granted. Given
that, this petition should be barred in its entirety by the doctrine of res judicata. Citing to,
amongst other cases, McNeil v. Legislative Apportionment Comm’n of State, 177 N.J.
364, cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1107 (2004) and In re Estate of Gabrellian, 372 N.J. Super.
432 (2004), it argues that since these cases involved decisions involving the same issues
and the same parties, dismissal is appropriate.
Second, it argues that Petitioner failed to comply with the with the ninety day time
limit encoded in N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) to appeal the denial of her requests for relief. Citing to
cases such as Riely v. Hunterdon Central Bd. of Educ., 173 N.J. Super. 109 (App. Div.
1980) and Kaprow v. Board of Educ. of Berkeley Tp., 131 N.J. 572 (1993), Respondent
notes that all of the claims being pursued in the instant petition (admittedly) date back
several years, with decisions such as they were, being made as far back as 2017.
Finally, Respondent argues that at least some aspects of the claims do not fall
within the jurisdiction of the OAL. To the extent that vague references to ethical issues,
the Anti-Bullying Act, financial damages, etc., Respondent points to the decision in C.B.
o/b/o J.B. v. City of Newark BOE, Essex Co., (EDU 14526-2018), which deemed them to
be non-cognizable in this forum.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Before delving into the law, we must first review the specific allegations made in
this Petition. They are;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
8
Allegation #1 - Newark Public Schools’ policies on visitor ID scanner, attendance,
promotion, suspension.
As detailed above, C.B. admitted that this allegation relates to the “2018-2019
petition”. In reviewing the prior cases, this issue was specifically raised in C.B. o/b/o
J.B. v. City of Newark Board of Education (EDU 17293-19) and was dismissed as
having been filed in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) as she had been aware of the ID
policy since at least November, 2018 and the retention, promotion and suspension
policies since at least May, 2017. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner of
Education in an October 19, 2020 Final Decision.
In fact, the retention policy was also raised in C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County (EDU 04507-2019) and was
similarly dismissed for C.B. having failed to comply with the ninety day time limit of
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). This decision was upheld in a February 20, 2020 Final Decision.
Allegation #2 - Newark Public Schools’ policies concerning A.J.B. and the online
enrollment practices of Newark Central High School.
As detailed above, C.B. admitted that this allegation relates to the “2020-2021
petition”. In reviewing the prior cases, this issue was specifically raised in C.B. o/b/o
A.J.B. v. BOE of the City of Newark (EDU 04337-2021) and was dismissed as moot,
since he ultimately successfully enrolled at Central. That decision was adopted by the
Commissioner of Education in a June 15, 2021 Final Decision.
Allegation #3 – The alleged misclassification of J.B. and a request to have same
removed from his transcript.
In reviewing the prior cases, this issue was specifically raised in C.B. o/b/o J.B. v.
City of Newark BOE, Essex County (EDU 14526-2018) which was voluntarily withdrawn
by C.B. on October 3, 2018.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
9
Claims concerning J.B. and his classification were also raised in C.B. o/b/o minor
child, J.B. v. Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County (EDU 04507-
2019) and was similarly dismissed for C.B. having failed to comply with the ninety day
time limit of N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) since she first became aware of his special education
classification in 2012, which continued until she removed him from such classes in May
or June, 2017. This decision was upheld in a February 20, 2020 Final Decision.
RES JUDICATA
The seminal New Jersey case involving the doctrines of res judicata and
collateral estoppel is Sacharow v. Sacharow, 177 N.J. 62 (2003), which provided the
following primer;
The doctrine of collateral estoppel…is 'that branch of the
broader law of res judicata which bars relitigation of any issue
which was actually determined in a prior action, generally
between the same parties, involving a different claim or cause
of action.' 	Woodrick v. Jack J. Burke Real Estate, Inc., 306
N.J. Super. 61, 79 (quoting State v. Gonzalez, 75 N.J. 181,
186 (1977)) certif. granted, Woodrick v. Fox & Lazo, Inc.,
Realtors, 153 N.J. 214, and app. dismissed, 157 N.J. 537
(1997).
Id. at 76.
As to res judicata, the Court held;
“Preclusion can occur only "[w]hen an issue of fact or law is
actually litigated and determined by valid and final judgment."
Hernandez v. Region Nine Housing Corp.,146 N.J. 645, 659
(1996) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 at
250 (1982)) (emphasis omitted); Mazzilli v. Accident & Cas.
Ins. Co. of Winterthur, Switzerland, 26 N.J. 307, 334 (1958)
("'[I]t is only upon such matters as were actually litigated and
determined that the judgment is conclusive.'") (quoting City of
Paterson v. Baker, 51 N.J. Eq. 49, 53 (Ch. 1893)).”
Id. at 76-77.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
10
The Court in Hernandez v. Region Nine Housing Corp., 146 N.J. 645 (1996)
addressed the issue of res judicata in somewhat more detail;
When 	an 	issue 	of 	fact 	or 	law 	is 	actually 	litigated 	and
determined by a valid and final judgment, the determination is
conclusive 	in 	a 	subsequent 	action 	between 	the 	parties,
whether on the same or a different claim. [Restatement
(Second) 	of 	Judgments 	§ 	27 	at 	250 	(1982) 	(emphasis
added).]
New Jersey law also requires that the issue presented in the
later action must be identical to the issue decided in the earlier
adjudication. Morristown Trust Co. v. Thebaud, 43 N.J. Super.
209, 217, 128 A.2d 288 (Ch. Div. 1957). The Restatement
adds, however, that issue preclusion cannot be invoked when:
(1) The party against whom preclusion is sought could
not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the
judgment 	in 	the 	initial 	action; 	or…(3) 	A 	new
determination of the issue is warranted by differences in
the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed
in the two courts or by factors relating to the allocation
of jurisdiction between them; or…(5) There is a clear and
convincing 	need 	for 	a 	new 	determination 	of 	the
issue…because of the potential adverse impact of the
determination on the public interest or the interests of
persons 	not 	themselves 	parties 	in 	the 	initial
action,…[Restatement (Second) of Judgments, (supra),
§ 28 at 273.]
Hernandez, 146 N.J. at 659.
In 2010, the Appellate Division reiterated the standards for the applicability of the
doctrine of res judicata;
(T)he question of whether an action is barred by the doctrine
of res judicata "is a question of law 'to be determined by a
judge in the second proceeding after weighing the appropriate
factors 	bearing 	upon 	the 	issue.'" 	Selective 	Ins. 	Co. 	v.
McAllister, 327 N.J. Super. 168, 173 (App. Div. 2000) (quoting
Colucci v. Thomas Nicol Asphalt Co., 194 N.J. Super. 510,
518 (App. Div. 1984)). Since we are presented with a question
of 	law, 	we 	owe 	the 	trial 	court's 	decision 	no 	deference.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
11
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140
N.J. 366, 378 (1995).
Broadly stated, the doctrine of res judicata bars "relitigation of
claims 	or 	issues 	that 	have 	already 	been 	adjudicated."
Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505 (1991). It provides that
"a cause of action between parties that has been finally
determined on the merits by a tribunal having jurisdiction
cannot be relitigated by those parties or their privies in a new
proceeding." Ibid. The doctrine fosters "the important policy
goals of 'finality and repose; prevention of needless litigation;
avoidance of duplication; reduction of unnecessary burdens
of time and expenses; elimination of conflicts, confusion and
uncertainty; and basic fairness . . . .'" First Union Nat'l Bank v.
Penn Salem Marina, Inc., 190 N.J. 342, 352 (2007) (quoting
Hackensack v. Winner, 82 N.J. 1, 32-33 (1980)). It also
"maintain[s] judicial integrity by minimizing the possibility of
inconsistent 	decisions 	regarding 	the 	same 	matter."
Velasquez v. Franz, supra, 123 N.J. at 505.
For the doctrine of res judicata to bar an action, there must be
"substantially similar or identical causes of action and issues,
parties, and relief sought" between the two actions, and a final
judgment must have been entered in the earlier action by a
court of competent jurisdiction. Culver v. Ins. Co. of N. Am.,
115 N.J. 451, 460 (1989).
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Capoferri, 2010 N.J. Super.
Unpub. LEXIS 589 at 5-6.
Or, as put in the case of Green v. State Farm Ins., 2008 N.J. Super. Unpub.
LEXIS 1513;
The preclusionary doctrine of res judicata involves elements
that are all present here: common parties, common subject
matters, common issues and common evidence, as well as a
final judgment rendered in the first action on the merits. See
Velasquez v. Franz, 123 N.J. 498, 505-06 (1991); see also
Restatement of Judgments (Second) § 19 (1982). Even if a
claim is not specifically raised in the first proceeding, it is
precluded from being litigated in the ensuing action if there
previously was a fair opportunity to have raised it. See
Brunetti, 	supra, 	68 	N.J. 	at 	587-88, 	see 	also 	McNeil 	v.
Legislative Apportionment Comm'n. 177 N.J. 364, 395 (2003),

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
12
cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1107, 124 S.Ct. 1068, 157 L.Ed. 2d 893
(2004).
Green, 2008 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1513 at 9.
As was noted in McNeil;
The doctrine of res judicata is primarily one of public policy
and only secondarily of private benefit to individual litigants....
[I]ts roots lie in the principle that public policy and welfare
require a definite end to litigation when each of the parties has
had a full, free and untrammeled opportunity of presenting all
of the facts pertinent to the controversy. The primary object of
res 	judicata 	(public 	policy) 	is 	based 	upon 	the 	maxim
reipublicae ut sit finis litium -- it concerns the commonwealth
that there be a limit to litigation. [(citations omitted).] [Kugler v.
Romain, 110 N.J. Super. 470, 484 (Ch. Div. 1970) (quoting
Desmond 	v. 	Kramer, 	96 	N.J. 	Super. 	96, 	107 	(Cty. 	Ct.
1967)(quoting Coca-Cola v. Pepsi-Cola Co., 172 A. 260 (Del.
1934)))].
Id. at 399-400.
The Court in Bressman v. Gash, 131 N.J. 517 (1993) confirmed that the doctrine
of res judicata should not only apply to court decisions, but also to administrative ones;
As 	a 	general 	rule, 	an 	adjudicative 	decision 	of 	an
administrative agency "should be accorded the same finality
that is 	accorded 	the judgment of 	a court." 	Restatement
(Second) 	of 	Judgments 	§ 	83 	comment 	b 	(1982)
(Restatement); see Kenneth C. Davis, 4 Administrative Law
Treatise § 21.9 (2d ed. 1983). [*527] Underlying the doctrine
of 	res 	judicata 	is 	concern 	for 	the 	stability 	of 	results.
Restatement, 	supra. 	The 	application 	of 	res 	judicata 	to
adjudicative decisions of 	administrative agencies, like its
application to judicial decisions, rests on policy considerations
such as "finality and repose; prevention of needless litigation;
avoidance of duplication; reduction of unnecessary burdens
of time and expenses; elimination of conflicts, confusion and
uncertainty; and basic fairness . . . ." Hackensack v. Winner,
82 N.J. 1, 32-33, 410 A.2d 1146 (1980).
Id. at 526-27.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
13
As was argued by Respondent and detailed above, all three claims being
pursued by Petitioner in this case have been substantively adjudicated previously, with
the claims in the first allegation having been dismissed as being time barred in separate
decisions that were both upheld by the Commissioner of Education in a Final Decision,
the claims in the second allegation having been dismissed as moot in another decision
upheld by the Commissioner in a Final Decision and the claims in the third allegation
having been dismissed as being time barred in the yet another decision that was upheld
in a Final Decision.
C.B. did not provide any legally meaningful opposition to the motion, but simply
reiterated her prior positions that various actions taken by Respondent were improper.
Given the above, I FIND that all aspects of and claims contained in C.B.’s petition
have been fully litigated previously between the parties and that there is no need or
compelling reason for same to be relitigated.
Therefore, I CONCLUDE that all aspects of and claims contained in C.B.’s
current Petition are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and must be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
In addition to being barred by the doctrine of res judicata, it should be noted, as it
was in both C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v. Board of Education of the City of Newark,
Essex County (EDU 04507-2019) and C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v. Board of
Education of the City of Newark, Essex County (EDU 04507-2019), that the clams
posited by C.B. in the instant are time barred.
The regulation concerning appeals is N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), which reads as
follows;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
14
Filing and service of petition of appeal - The petitioner shall
file a petition no later than the 90th day from the date of receipt
of the notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the
district board of education, individual party, or agency, that is
the subject of the requested contested case hearing. This rule
shall 	not 	apply 	in 	instances 	where 	a 	specific 	statute,
regulation, or court order provides for a period of limitation
shorter than 90 days for the filing of a particular type of appeal.
(emphasis added)
This rule (along with others in this chapter of the Administrative Code) can be
“relaxed or dispensed with by the Commissioner, in the Commissioner’s discretion, in
any case where a strict adherence thereto may be deemed inappropriate or
unnecessary or may result in injustice”. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.16.
In exploring the case law surrounding the relaxation of the ninety day rule, it
becomes very apparent, very quickly, that the courts do not look indulgently on same.
One of the most oft-cited cases involving this issue is Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of
Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572 (1993). Kaprow involved the termination of a tenured
assistant superintendent effective June 30, 1981. After a rather complicated series of
events involving RIF6 rights and the “re-creation” of assistant superintendent positions
year later, Kaprow filed a petition with the Commissioner on August 1, 1988 asserting a
claim to one of the re-created positions. He amended that petition on December 16,
1988 to assert, for the first time, that the 1981 RIF was improper and had been made in
bad faith. Id. at 576-78.
In the face of a partial victory for Kaprow in the underlying OAL case, the
Commissioner dismissed the petition, finding, in part, “that the bad-faith claim was
untimely instead of unsupported”. That decision was affirmed by the State Board of
Education, which found that the August 1, 1988 petition “was time barred by the ninety-
6 Reduction in force.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
15
day limitations period of N.J.A.C. 6:24-1.2(c)” and the Appellate Division affirmed the
Board’s decision. Id. at 578.
The bar can be relaxed “when strict adherence would possibly result in an
injustice.” Grompone v. State Operated Sch. Dist. Of Jersey City, 1999 N.J. AGEN LEXIS
786 (Dec. 20, 1999) at 17., app. denied, 1994 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 4, cit. Bogert v.
East Orange Bd. of Educ., OAL DKT. NO. EDU 6245-82 (January 26, 1983), aff’d
Commissioner 	of 	Education 	(March 	14, 	1983). 	See 	also, 	Morris-Union 	Jointure
Commission v. Bd. of Ed. of South River, 92 N.J.A.R 2d (EDU) 453 (1992).
However, Morris-Union confirmed that “it is petitioner’s burden to show that it will
suffer injustice if the 90-day rule is strictly enforced.” Id. at 471.
Here, C.B. has produced no evidence or argument that she has either complied
with the ninety day rule or which would justify its relaxation. For those reasons, and the
reasons expressed in the prior decisions cited above, I FIND that C.B. failed to comply
with the requirements of N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) and I further FIND that she has failed to
demonstrate that the enforcement of those requirements would lead to an injustice. I
also CONCLUDE that even if the petitioner was not barred by the doctrine of res
judicata, it would be dismissed due to the violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). I further
CONCLUDE that the petitioner should be dismissed for failure to state a claim on this
basis in addition to res judicata.
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
While I FIND that all of C.B.’s claims have been addressed by both the
discussions of res judicata and the appellate time bar, to the extent that any ancillary
issues may not have been addressed, I CONCLUDE that they fail to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
16
Vague allegations of disrespect, violations of the Anti-Bullying Act, financial
damages, etc. are simply not cognizable in this forum. See generally, Robinson v.
Union Twp. Bd. of Educ., 2020 N.J. Agen Lexis 12 (December 13, 2019).
To the extent that those allegations are made in this petition, I FIND that they are
outside the jurisdiction of the OAL and must be brought in another forum. I therefore
FIND that those allegations must be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
CONCLUSION
Given the totality of the evidence, I CONCLUDE that Petitoner’s claims are barred
by the doctrine of res judicata, are time-barred and/or are not cognizable in the OAL.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, Respondent's motion to dismiss Petitioner’s appeal for
failure to state a claim per Rule 4:6-2(e) be and is hereby GRANTED and;
It is hereby ORDERED that judgment be ENTERED on behalf of respondent and
that the Petitioner’s appeal be and is hereby DISMISSED.
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 07594-21
17
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.
March 17, 2022
DATE 	Matthew G. Miller, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	March 17, 2022
Date Mailed to Parties: 	March 17, 2022
MGM/mm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
18
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
None
EXHIBITS
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
R-A 	June 12, 2018 C.B. petition in C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v.
City of Newark BOE, Essex Co./Weaver, Deborah; Montes,
Kishanda; Duke Jackson Kathy and Spring, Sakinah (EDU
10368-2018)
R-B 	September 28, 2018 letter from Respondent to Judge Testa
confirming Petitioner’s withdrawal of EDU 10368-2018
R-C 	October, 2018 C.B. petition in C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. 	v.
City of Newark BOE, Essex Co. (EDU 14526-2018)
R-D 	October 23, 2018 letter from C.B. withdrawing EDU 14526-
2018
R-E 	February, 2019 petition in C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v. City
of Newark BOE, Essex Co. (EDU 04507-2019)
R-F 	New Jersey Department of Education’s Final Decision and
Judge Bongiovanni’s Initial Decision in EDU 04507-2019

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07594-21
19
R-G 	November, 2019 petition in C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. v. City
of Newark Board of Education (EDU 17293-2019)
R-H 	New Jersey Department of Education’s Final Decision and
Judge Betancourt’s Initial Decision in EDU 17293-2019
R-I 	October, 2020 C.B. petition in C.B. o/b/o minor child, A.J.B.
v. City of Newark Board of Education, Essex County (EDU
10179-2020)
R-J 	New Jersey Department of Education’s Final Decision and
Judge Monaco’s Initial Decision in EDU 10179-2020
R-K 	March, 2021 C.B. petition in C.B. o/b/o minor child, J.B. 	v.
BOE of the City of Newark (EDU 04337-2021)
R-L 	August 11, 2021 letter from Judge Monaco confirming C.B.’s
withdrawal of EDU 04337-2021.
Court:
C-1 	September 7, 2021 Petition in C.B. o/b/o minor children,
A.J.B. and J.B. v. City of Newark BOE, Essex County (EDU
07594-2021) (current case)
C-2 	February 18, 2020 Petitioner letter in opposition
C-3 	March 14, 2022 Respondent reply brief