L.W. v. JERSEY CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION, 2:22-cv-06483

Plaintiff L.W. challenged a New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (NJOAL) decision that found her claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) time-barred due to untimeliness on the part of her parents.
The initial NJOAL decision concluded that L.W.’s parents were required to timely advocate on her behalf while she was a minor, and their failure to do so barred the claims.
The district court initially reversed and remanded, stating a factual issue existed as to who was authorized to advocate for L.W. while she was a student.
On remand, ALJ Moscowitz found L.W.’s mother had authority up to L.W.’s majority, and again ruled the claims time-barred as neither parent nor L.W. herself filed within the limitations period.
L.W. challenged the remand ruling, and the court granted summary judgment for the Jersey City Board of Education, denying L.W.’s motions for summary judgment and sanctions.
L.W. moved for reconsideration, which is the subject of this opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether reconsideration is warranted	Court manifestly erred or overlooked relevant facts/law	No new evidence or clear error; reconsideration standard not met	Denied – no basis for reconsideration
Whether lack of Prior Written Notice/Eligibility Notice tolled the statute of limitations	JCBE withheld info, preventing timely filing by mother	No new evidence; issues already fully considered	Denied – argument repetitive, not based on new evidence
Whether court failed to apply correct standard under IDEA and Third Circuit law	Court used "occurrence theory" instead of "discovery rule" per Ligonier	Court applied correct standard; parent's reasonable discovery date governs	Denied – court correctly applied Ligonier and IDEA standard
Whether the remand was properly addressed by ALJ Moscowitz	ALJ did not address who could advocate for L.W.	ALJ determined based on evidence that H.W. had authority	Court accepted ALJ's determination based on new hearing evidence

Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666 (3d Cir. 2010) (motions for reconsideration require manifest error, new evidence, or change in controlling law)
Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining standard for granting motions for reconsideration)
G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 2015) (clarifying the "knew or should have known" discovery rule for IDEA claims and limitations period)
Pub. Int. Rsch. Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Magnesium Elektron, Inc., 123 F.3d 111 (3d Cir. 1997) (when reconsideration is appropriate under law of the case doctrine)