United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before
the Court is the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment
(the “Motion”). (Doc. 16) For the reasons set
forth below, the Motion is granted.
I.
Background[1]
In
October 2002, Danielle Baudhuin (the “Defendant”)
executed a promissory note to obtain a Direct Consolidation
loan (the “Student Loan”) from the Department of
Education. (Doc. 17 at 1) On December 23, 2002, the Student
Loan was disbursed in two sums, $12, 671.84 and $11, 952.56,
for a total amount of $24, 624.40. (Doc. 17 at 1) The
interest rate for the Student Loan was 5.0% interest per
annum. (Doc. 1-1) The Defendant defaulted on the Student Loan
in September 2007. (Doc. 17 at 1) At the time the Defendant
defaulted on the Student Loan, approximately $3, 661.53 in
unpaid interest was capitalized and added to the principal
balance. (Doc. 1-1)
On
November 17, 2017, the Government initiated this lawsuit
seeking judgment for $42, 984.83, the balance due under the
Student Loan. The remaining balance is comprised of
approximately $28, 270.86 in principal under the Student Loan
and approximately $14, 713.97 in additional accrued
interest.[2] (Doc. 1-1) In defense of this lawsuit, the
Defendant alleges that she lacks sufficient knowledge to know
the accuracy of the claim against her. (Doc. 15)
On
November 15, 2018, the Government filed the Motion seeking
summary judgment on its claims against the Defendant. (Doc.
16) The Government filed a certificate of indebtedness
executed by Brad Yoder, a Loan Analyst of the Litigation
Support Unit of the U.S. Department of Education, alongside
the Motion. (Doc. 17-1)
II.
Standard of Review
A court
shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting
documents, viewed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a);
see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322-23 (1986). Material facts are those facts “that
might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of material fact
arises if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”
Id.
The
party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of
informing the court of the basis for its motion and
identifying those portions of the record, together with
affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at
323. If the movant is able to do such, the burden then shifts
to the non-movant who, “must do more than simply show
that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material
facts, ” and instead must “come forward with
‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue
for trial.'” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).
III.
Analysis
The
Government is entitled to the unpaid principal and accrued
interest on federally insured student loans in default. 20
U.S.C. § 1080(a). The Government may establish a prima
facie case of student loan default by proving: (1) the
defendant signed a promissory note for a student loan; (2)
the Government owns the promissory note signed by the
defendant; and (3) the promissory note has not been repaid or
discharged. United States v. Macy, 2012 WL 86820, at
1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 11, 2012); United States v. Falcon,
805 F.3d 873, 876 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating that the
Government establishes a prima facie case by presenting a
certificate of indebtedness, signed under the penalty of
perjury, showing a debtor executed promissory notes to obtain
student loans, defaulted on the loans, and owes the
Government a particular amount on the loans).
The
Government may introduce evidence of the promissory note and
a sworn transcript of the account or certificate of
indebtedness in order to prove its case. Macy, 2012
WL 86820, at 1 (citing United States v.
Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 290 (6th Cir. 2009)). Once
a prima facie case is established, the defendant has the
burden of proving the nonexistence, extinguishment or
variance in payment of the obligation. Id. Absent
any genuine disputes of material fact, such evidence warrants
granting the Government summary judgment in an action to
collect on student debt. United States v. Gazanferi,
2016 WL 4491864, at 4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016).
The
Court finds that the Government made a prima facie showing
that the Defendant defaulted on the Student Loan. First, the
Court notes that there is no genuine dispute as to the
material facts of this case, as the Defendant does not
dispute (i) executing the promissory note for the Student
Loan; (ii) the Government's ownership of the Student
Loan; or (iii) that the Student Loan has not been repaid or
discharged. (Doc. 23 at 2, stating “My recollection of
the consolidation is reasonably
similar.”).[3] At most, the Defendant argues that she
cannot confirm the Government's characterization of the
amount due under the Student Loan. However, the Court finds
that the certificate of indebtedness filed as Exhibit 1 to
the Plaintiffs Statement of Facts (Doc. 17-1), signed under
penalty of perjury by Loan Analyst Brad Yoder, and the
promissory note filed as Exhibit 2 to the Plaintiffs
Statement of Facts (Doc. 17-2) provides sufficient evidence
of the balance due under the Student Loan. Separately, ...