Opinion
Case No. 2:11-cv-688
01-14-2014
DANIEL CASTAGNOLA, Plaintiff, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORP., et al., Defendants.
JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Judgment (ECF No. 50), Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Damages (ECF No. 53), Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation's ("ECMC") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59), Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification (ECF No. 62), and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Request for Trial (ECF No. 67). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification; DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Damages and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Request for Trial; and, GRANTS Defendant ECMC's Motion for Summary Judgment
I.
Plaintiff, Daniel Castagnola ("Plaintiff"), attended college at Columbus State Community College. On September 20, 2001, Plaintiff signed a Federal Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note, identifying Victor and Dora Castagnola and Ana Hernandez as references. On September 26, 2001, Plaintiff received loans totaling $7,500 for the loan period of September 19, 2001 to June 15, 2002.
On March 10, 2003, Plaintiff submitted an In-School Deferment Request, and on September 14, 2003, Plaintiff submitted an Unemployment Deferment Request. On January 30, 2008, Plaintiff disputed liability for the loans, alleging that he had not signed the original notes. Plaintiff contends that he paid for his college without the assistance of loans and that the loan documents in the Administrative Record are forged, most likely by his ex-wife.
On July 16, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a loan discharge application, also known as a false certification application, to Defendant ECMC, which was denied. Plaintiff appealed that decision to Defendant the United States Department of Education. The Department of Education upheld the denial.
On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action against ECMC and the United States Department of Education, seeking review of the denial of his application for loan discharge. Plaintiff is proceeding without the assistance of counsel.
On October 1, 2012, Defendant the United States Department of Education moved for judgment on the administrative record, which this Court granted on June 28, 2012. (ECF No. 48.) The Court mistakenly entered judgment, subsequently vacating the judgment because Defendant ECMC had not joined in the Department of Education's request for judgment. (ECF No. 51.)
On July 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled "Motion to Appeal Judgment." In that motion, Plaintiff asks this Court to reconsider its June 28, 2013 decision granting the Department of Educations Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. (ECF No. 50.)
On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Increase Amount of Damages (ECF No. 53), and on September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Affidavit in support of his positions taken in this action (ECF No. 54).
On October 25, 2013, ECMC moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 59), which Plaintiff has opposed (ECF Nos. 60, 61).
On November 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification (ECF No. 62) and on November 22, 2013, he filed a Case Summary in Support of Claim (ECF No. 64). On November 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document titled "Wording Clarification" (ECF No. 65), and on December 6, 2013, he filed a document titled "Defendant's Responsibilities" (ECF No. 66). On January 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel and Request Trial. (ECF No. 67.)
II.
A. Plaintifrs Motion to Appeal Judgment
On June 28, 2013, this Court issued an Opinion and Order in which it granted Defendant the United States Department of Education's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. In Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Judgment, he asks this Court to reconsider its decision.
Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not explicitly address motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, the authority for a district court to hear such motions is found in both the common law and in Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rodriguez v. Tenn. Laborers Health & Welfare Fund, 89 F. App'x 949, 959 (6th Cir. 2004). A district court's authority to reconsider its previous orders has been recognized to afford such relief as justice requires. Id. "' [C]ourts will find justification for reconsidering interlocutory orders whe[re] there is (1) an intervening change of controlling law; (2) new evidence available; or (3) a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Louisville/Jefferson Co. Metro Gov't v. Hotels.com, LP., 590 F.3d 381, 389 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted; second alteration in original).
In Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Judgment, he only reiterates the arguments that this Court has already considered in its Opinion and Order. Consequently, Plaintiff has presented no sufficient reason for the Court to reconsider its prior decision. The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff's request.
B. Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification
On October 25, 2013, Defendant ECMC filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. In that motion, ECMC asks this Court to grant it judgment as a matter of law for, inter alia, the same reasons the Court granted Defendant the United States Department of Education's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record. Plaintiff filed two memoranda in opposition to Defendant's motion and a document titled "Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification." In all three of these documents, Plaintiff articulates the reasons he believes that Defendant ECMC's Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
On June 28, 2013, this Court granted Defendant the United States Department of Education's Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record, concluding:
Accordingly, the Court finds that the agency offered a plausible explanation for its decision that does not run counter to the evidence that was before it, considered and relied on factors which Congress intended it to consider, and did not entirely fail to consider an important aspect of the issue before it. Therefore, the agency's denial of Plaintiff's loan discharge request is not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law, and must be upheld.(Opinion and Order at 8; ECF No. 48). See also Ky. Waterways Alliance v. Johnson, 540 F.3d 466, 473 (6th Cir. 2008) (review of the denial of Plaintiff's loan discharge request under the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), which "directs that when reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, a court shall 'hold unlawful and set aside the agency action' if the action is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.'").
The Court's prior decision sets forth its reasoning for its conclusion, which is incorporated in its entirety here. For these same reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant ECMC's motion.
C. Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Damages and His Motion to Compel and Request Trial
This Court's decisions above, render moot Plaintiff's request to increase damages and for trial. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Motion to Increase Damages and Motion to Compel and Request Trial
D. Additional Arguments
Recognizing that Plaintiff is proceeding without the assistance of counsel, the Court addresses his arguments reiterated throughout his motions and memoranda currently at issue as well as the other documents Plaintiff has recently filed with this Court related to the help he has sought and the advice he has received. (See Affidavit at ECF No. 54; Case Summary in Support of Claim at ECF No. 64; Wording Clarification at ECF No. 65; Defendant's Responsibilities at ECF No. 66.) In these filings, Plaintiff contends that he was told by several agencies to seek redress in this Court. He names throughout the filings the entities from which he has sought help, for example, the "Attorney General, Inspector General of the Air Force, U.S. Senators, the Pentagon and a visit to the White House." (Motion to Appeal Judgment at 2.) He maintains that he was told by many agencies, including "the Secret Service and the Office of Senator Sherrod Brown" to seek redress in this Court. Id. at 2. He concludes many times that he "could not have done more." (Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification at 2.)
This Court agrees that Plaintiff has gone to great lengths to seek the relief he requests. However, there is a difference between seeking redress and being granted the relief one seeks. While Plaintiff has properly sought relief from this Court, the Court has determined that Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he requests.
III.
Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal Judgment (ECF No. 50); DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Increase Amount of Damages (ECF No. 53); GRANTS Defendant ECMC's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 59); DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, Seeking Clarification (ECF No. 62); and, DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and Request for Trial (ECF No. 67). The Clerk is DIRECTED to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE