Opinion
No. 00 C 2249.
March 23, 2004
Plaintiffs and counter-defendants Jonathan Parkhurst Madden, Jon J. Madden and Diana M. Madden ("Madden") brought the underlying action against, among others, American Express, the Internal Revenue Service and Trans Union, LLC, alleging improprieties and inaccuracies in connection with plaintiffs' credit reports. On July 17, 2002, I granted summary judgment on the counterclaim of the defendant and counter-plaintiff Department of Education (the "DOE"). On December 12, 2003, I entered judgment on the counterclaim. On January 15, 2004, I granted the DOE's motion to amend the judgment on the counterclaim to correct an error on a previous order reflecting the amounts respectively owed by the various plaintiffs.
Madden now moves to vacate the January 15, 2004 judgment on the ground that the amounts due are not accurate. Pursuant to my request, the DOE reviewed Madden's motion and the attachments thereto for anything that would call into question the DOE's calculation of the outstanding balances on Madden's student loans. The DOE reexamination reports that none of the documents submitted by Madden question the accuracy of DOE records with respect to the outstanding student loans at issue. Accordingly, Madden's attached documents are not sufficient to create a genuine issue as to the accuracy of the DOE's records.
Specifically, with respect to loans FFEL1 and FFEL2, Madden submitted a printout that allegedly shows that an account was paid in full. However, that printout contains no information to identify what entity created the document or what loan or loans to which it refers. Madden did not submit and the DOE has no basis to conclude that the printout relates to loans FFEL1 and FFEL2.
Madden has also submitted a document entitled "Plaintiff Loan Payment History" that allegedly shows payments that were made toward Loans FFEL1, FFEL2, FFEL4, FFEL5, and FFEL6. This summary appears to have been created by Madden, and Madden has supplied no records to support the payments alleged. Similarly, Madden submitted a "Plaintiff Loan Payment History" that allegedly shows payments made toward Perkins-2. However, Madden provided supporting documentation for only one of the payments listed on the alleged payment history, and the DOE has already acknowledged that $716.19 was paid to the lender prior to default. The DOE's position that its records are accurate thus remains unchanged. Were these documents properly before me (which they are not), I would, based on my own examination of them, agree with the conclusions of the DOE.
As to the merits of Madden's motion, the ruling standard is provided by Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Madden's motion does not purport to meet that standard, and should be denied. Madden attaches to his motion a letter which he purportedly mailed to the AUSA on September 10, 2002 (almost two months after the entry of summary judgment), presumably with some or all of the documents attached that he attached to this motion. However, the AUSA's file does not show a copy of such a letter. Assuming that Madden did send the letter and documents to the office, however, this still provides no basis for vacating the judgment. I properly ruled on the summary judgment motion on July 17, 2002, based on the materials which had been submitted at the time. Madden received a Notice to Pro Se Litigant as required by the Local Rules, and he has offered no excuse for his failure to submit to me whatever he wanted considered prior to my ruling on the summary judgment motion.
For the reasons above, Madden's Motion to Amend Judgment is DENIED.