Opinion
Civil Action 00-3471; Section "T"
December 17, 2001
ORDER
On December 5, 2001, the Court heard, without oral argument, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff, United States of America, filed pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having studied the arguments of the respective parties, the legal memoranda and exhibits submitted by the parties, the record, and the applicable law, the Court is fully advised on the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. Background:
This motion arises out of a dispute between plaintiff, United States of America, acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, Debt Management Branch, (HHS), and defendant, William L. Mizell. The Plaintiff seeks recovery of payment for default on four promissory notes for Health Education Assistance Loans ("HEAL") incurred by the defendant between the years of 1989 and 1992.
Upon completing his education at Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine, the defendant was granted several deferments. Following these deferments, the defendant failed to make payments on the notes. Due to this failure, the Student Loan Marketing Association declared the defendant in default and filed an insurance claim with HHS. HHS paid a total of $111,591.00 on the insurance claim. The promissory notes were then assigned to HHS. (See Ex. 5) HHS still holds the promissory notes.
Plaintiff alleges that the defendant owes a total amount of $146,887.50, representing principal of $143,922.37 and unpaid accrued interest of $2,965.13. The promissory notes provided for interest at a variable rate, adjusted quarterly, and compounded semi-annually. Interest continues to accrue on the principal amount at the rate of 9.25 per cent per annum from October 20, 2000, to date of judgment.
On November 28, 2001, counsel for defendant submitted a Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that he had received no information from the defendant opposing the summary judgment, and additionally could not locate the defendant after numerous attempts to do so. Shortly after on December 4, 2001, counsel for defendant filed a Motion For Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging that the defendant had been located. Counsel added that while the defendant had no evidence disputing the summary judgment pending in this matter, he wished to advise that he was "financially unable to pay the outstanding debts due to partial disability which prevents him from working full time." (Supp. Motion, p. 1) In addition, defendant seeks some type of payment plan to assist him in repaying the government at least part of the monies owed.
II. Law and Argument
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that summary judgment should be granted only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the record which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d 651, 655-56 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d 909, 912-913 (5th Cir.) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 832 (1992)). When the moving party has carried its burden under Rule 56(c), its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. The nonmoving party 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, 587 (1986) (emphasis supplied); Tabucex, Inc. v. M/V RISAN, 45 F.3d 951, 954 (5th Cir. 1995).
Thus, where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no "genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 588. Finally, the Court notes that substantive law determines the materiality of facts and only "facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
III. Law and Analysis
The Plaintiff, United States of America, has established its prima facie case, and has met its burden of proof in establishing that there exists no material issue of genuine fact as to warrant a trial against Mr. Mizell. Plaintiff has presented the promissory notes at issue here signed by the defendant. (See Ex. 1, 2, 3, 4) The defendant has not specifically denied that the signature on the notes is his. Therefore, his signature is admitted. Smith v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc., 8 F. Supp.2d 562, 563 (E.D. La. 1998) ("`When signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense.'" (quoting American Bank v. Saxena, 553 So.2d 836, 842 (La. 1989)).
The Plaintiff has also established that it was assigned all rights, title and interest in the promissory notes. (See Ex. 5) HHS still holds these loans, thus Plaintiff has provided adequate proof that it is the owner of the promissory notes.
Mr. Mizell, the nonmoving party, must come forward with specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial. Not only has Mr. Mizell not come forward with these facts, but in his Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, he specifically states that he has no evidence to dispute the summary judgment currently pending.
Because defendant cannot satisfy the burden necessary to overcome this motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment should be granted. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment be GRANTED.