Middletown BOE moves to dismiss school-closure challenge without addressing claims

The Middletown Township Board of Education is asking New Jersey’s Commissioner of Education to dismiss a parents’ petition challenging its February 26 school-closure vote, while declining to address the substance of the claims raised in that petition.

In a March 23 filing, the district does not defend the closure plan on its merits. Instead, it argues the case should be dismissed on procedural grounds, including that it is too early for the state to intervene because the formal approval process has not yet run its course.¹

At the same time, the district continues to act on a timeline aligned with implementation. The February 26 vote directed the administration to proceed with a closure plan tied to the 2026–27 budget, and subsequent district activity has moved forward accordingly. The result is a dual posture: in court, the district argues the closures are not final; in practice, preparations continue as though they are.

Public Record NJ has obtained and reviewed the district’s letter brief to Commissioner of Education Lily Laux, submitted by Madden & Madden partner Regina M. Philipps in Kristin Rooney et al. v. Middletown Township Board of Education (Agency Ref. No. 079-03-26). The motion seeks dismissal “in its entirety” based on jurisdiction, ripeness, and failure to state a claim, and was filed in lieu of an answer.¹

The parents’ petition challenging Middletown school closures, filed March 4 by Shah Law Group, LLC, asks the Commissioner to void the closure resolution and require the district to keep Leonardo Elementary School, Navesink Elementary School, and Bayshore Middle School open through the 2026–27 school year, among other relief.²

The district’s response centers on whether the case should move forward, rather than the claims it raises.

What the February 26 vote did and why it matters

Both sides describe the February 26, 2026 action as a 5–4 vote “to begin the process of closing three district schools.”³ In its motion, the district emphasizes that this vote did not itself complete the closure process under state regulations.

That distinction is central to the district’s argument. The board contends the petition seeks to challenge compliance with N.J.A.C. 6A:26-7.5 before the regulatory process it describes has progressed to the point where those requirements can be evaluated.⁴

At the same time, the resolution was adopted as part of the district’s budget planning process, which operates on fixed statutory timelines. That timing creates a practical tension: while the district argues the matter is not yet reviewable, the budget process continues to move forward on a schedule that assumes decisions will be implemented.

What the district argues should be dismissed

Middletown’s motion does not address the factual allegations in the petition. Instead, it groups the claims into six counts and argues they should be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Because the motion was filed in lieu of an answer, the district is asking the Commissioner to dispose of the case without reaching the merits of the allegations.¹

Ripeness: the district says the process is not far enough along

On the core school-closure claims, the district argues the case is “not ripe for review” because required steps in the state approval process have not yet taken place.⁴

According to the motion, the district has not received a recommendation from the executive county superintendent and has not submitted a formal application to the New Jersey Department of Education’s Division of Administration and Finance. Without those steps, the district argues there has been no final agency action for the Commissioner to review.⁴

“Indeed, the school closure process has just begun,” the motion states, describing the Division’s final determination as “a necessary predicate” to administrative review.⁴

Jurisdiction: the district says some claims belong elsewhere

Middletown also argues the Commissioner and the Office of Administrative Law lack jurisdiction to decide certain claims raised in the petition, including constitutional and NJLAD claims (Count I) and Open Public Meetings Act claims (Counts IV and V).⁷

The district asks that those counts be dismissed with prejudice in this forum, meaning they could not be refiled as part of this administrative proceeding, though they may be pursued in other courts with appropriate jurisdiction.⁷

On OPMA, the motion characterizes the parents’ allegations as procedural violations that do not require the Commissioner’s education-law expertise.⁸

OFAC referral: the district challenges the claim itself

The district also argues that the petition’s request for a referral to the Office of Fiscal Accountability and Compliance should be dismissed because, as pleaded, it does not state an independent claim under law, regulation, or policy.⁹

What happens next

In New Jersey’s school-law dispute process for petitions of appeal, petitioners typically have an opportunity to file opposition to a motion to dismiss. The Commissioner may decide the motion directly or transmit the matter to the Office of Administrative Law for an administrative law judge’s initial decision.

A review of the OAL docket indicates a hearing on the motion is planned for the week of May 11.

The timing of that hearing intersects with the district’s budget calendar. The New Jersey Department of Education requires districts to adopt the 2026–27 budget by May 14, with a public hearing scheduled in Middletown for April 28.

The case now proceeds on two parallel tracks: a legal challenge that the district argues is premature, and a budget process that continues to move forward on a timeline tied to the same closure plan at issue in that challenge.

---

Primary Source Document

The Motion to Dismiss filed with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education on March 23, 2026 is provided below. This version excludes the attached exhibits.

Use this link to download the original filing, or scroll to review the document in full.

The following document is the Motion to Dismiss filed with the New Jersey Commissioner of Education on March 23, 2026. We have reproduced the letter here without the exhibits.

Full Motion (embedded)

Notes

1. Madden & Madden, “Middletown Township Board of Education’s Motion to Dismiss,” letter brief to Commissioner of Education Lily Laux, March 23, 2026, in Kristin Rooney et al. v. Middletown Township Board of Education (Agency Ref. No. 079-03-26), pp. 1–2, 11.
2. Shah Law Group, LLC, “Petition of Appeal,” March 4, 2026, Kristin Rooney et al. v. Middletown Township Board of Education, Prayer for Relief, pp. 56–57.
3. Madden & Madden, “Motion to Dismiss,” March 23, 2026, p. 2; Shah Law Group, “Petition of Appeal,” March 4, 2026, Preliminary Statement, p. 1.
4. Madden & Madden, “Motion to Dismiss,” March 23, 2026, p. 10.
5. Shah Law Group, “Petition of Appeal,” March 4, 2026, Count VI allegations regarding Ross Haber Associates, pp. 55–56.
6. Madden & Madden, “Motion to Dismiss,” March 23, 2026, p. 3.
7. Madden & Madden, “Motion to Dismiss,” March 23, 2026, pp. 5–6.
8. Madden & Madden, “Motion to Dismiss,” March 23, 2026, p. 7.
9. Madden & Madden, “Motion to Dismiss,” March 23, 2026, p. 2.