HASHEM v. HUNTERDON COUNTY et al

Filing 58

OPINION filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert on 3/2/2017. (mmh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
SIREEN HASHEM,
Plaintiff,
v.
HUNTERDON COUNTY, et al.
Defendants.

:
: Civil Action No. 15-8585 (FLW)(DEA)
:
:
:
OPINION
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

ARPERT, Magistrate Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on (1) a motion by Plaintiff for the entry of default
against Hunterdon Central Regional High School and (2) a cross-motion by Defendant
Hunterdon Central Regional Board of Education (“Defendant”) to dismiss the Complaint as to
Hunterdon Central Regional High School. The Court heard oral argument on the motions on
March 1, 2017. For the reasons below as well as the reasons stated on the record of that
proceeding, the motion for entry of default will be denied and the motion to dismiss will be
granted.
Under Rule 55, a court may enter default “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for
affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by
affidavit or otherwise.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Here, there is no dispute that the Defendant
Hunterdon Central Regional High School (the “High School”) has not responded to the
Complaint in this matter. 1 However, the first step in determining whether default should be

1

Reference here to the “Complaint” includes the original Complaint and the subsequently-filed Amended
Complaints.

entered is examining whether there has been valid service, as it is axiomatic that there must be
effective service of process on a defendant before an entry of default can be made. As the party
seeking entry of default, the Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that valid service has been
made on the High School. See Grand Entertainment Group, Ltd. v. Star Media Sales, Inc., 988
F.2d 476, 488 (3d Cir. 1993)(“[T]he party asserting the validity of service bears the burden of
proof on that issue.”). The Court finds Plaintiff has not met that burden.
Defendant asserts that default cannot be entered because the High School is merely a
building and is not a legal entity amenable to being served or sued. Rather, according to
Defendant, the Hunterdon Central Regional High School Board of Education is the appropriate
defendant. See N.J.S.A. §§ 18A:10-1(“The schools of each school district shall be conducted, by
and under the supervision of a board of education…”); 18A:11-1 (empowering a board of
education to “[p]erform all acts and do all things … necessary for the lawful and proper conduct
… of the public schools of the district”). Indeed, a number of courts have recognized that in New
Jersey individual public schools are not themselves legal entities distinct from the board of
education or school district. See, e.g., M.K. ex rel. D.K. v. Hillsdale Bd. of Educ., No. 06-1438,
2006 WL 2067177, at *1 (D.N.J. July 20, 2006) (“The Court doubts that Ann Blanche Smith
School is a legal entity subject to suit separate and apart from the Hillsdale Board of
Education.”); K.P. v. Corsey, 228 F. Supp. 2d 547, 548 (D.N.J. 2002) (“Deptford Township High
School is not a separate legal entity [from the Board of Education]…”), rev'd on other grounds,
77 F. App’x 611 (3d Cir. 2003); LoPresti v. Galloway Twp. Middle Sch., 381 N.J. Super. 314,
318 (Law Div. 2004) (noting that “[w]hile the Galloway Township Middle School was named as
a defendant in this matter, in reality, the true defendant is the Galloway Township School
District since the Galloway Township Middle School … is not a legal entity”).
2

Plaintiff offers no authority to the contrary. As such, Plaintiff has not established that the
High School is a legal entity distinct from Defendant Board of Education that is capable of being
effectively served with process and sued separately from the Board of Education. Consequently,
the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default. For that same reason, the Court will
grant Defendant’s motion to dismiss. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff renewing her
claims against the High School by way of a motion to amend the Complaint should discovery
uncover information that would support such an application. An appropriate Order accompanies
this Opinion.

s/ Douglas E. Arpert
DOUGLAS E. ARPERT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3