United States of America v. Baudhuin
Filing
30
ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16 ) is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff United States of America against Defendant Danielle M. Baudhuin in the amount of $42,984.83 plus any additional interest that has accrued from April 27, 2017 at the rate of 5.0% per annum, plus interest from the date of this Order as provided by law. The Government may submit its request for costs within 14 days of the entry of this Order. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. See document for complete details. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/17/2019. (RMV)
WO
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
United States of America,
9
Plaintiff,
10
vs.
11
Danielle M. Baudhuin,
12
Defendant.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-17-04242-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Before the Court is the Government’s Motion for Summary Judgment (the
15
16
“Motion”). (Doc. 16) For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
17
I.
Background1
18
In October 2002, Danielle Baudhuin (the “Defendant”) executed a promissory note
19
to obtain a Direct Consolidation loan (the “Student Loan”) from the Department of
20
Education. (Doc. 17 at 1) On December 23, 2002, the Student Loan was disbursed in two
21
sums, $12,671.84 and $11,952.56, for a total amount of $24,624.40. (Doc. 17 at 1) The
22
interest rate for the Student Loan was 5.0% interest per annum. (Doc. 1-1) The Defendant
23
defaulted on the Student Loan in September 2007. (Doc. 17 at 1) At the time the Defendant
24
defaulted on the Student Loan, approximately $3,661.53 in unpaid interest was capitalized
25
26
27
28
1
Unless otherwise noted, the facts that follow are undisputed. The Court notes that
the Defendant failed to file a controverting statement of facts with her response to the
Motion as required by the local Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona 56.1(b). Therefore, the Defendant fails to dispute the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s
Statement of Facts (Doc. 17), and the facts set forth in Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts are
deemed admitted for purposes of the Motion.
1
and added to the principal balance. (Doc. 1-1)
2
On November 17, 2017, the Government initiated this lawsuit seeking judgment for
3
$42,984.83, the balance due under the Student Loan. The remaining balance is comprised
4
of approximately $28,270.86 in principal under the Student Loan and approximately
5
$14,713.97 in additional accrued interest.2 (Doc. 1-1) In defense of this lawsuit, the
6
Defendant alleges that she lacks sufficient knowledge to know the accuracy of the claim
7
against her. (Doc. 15)
8
On November 15, 2018, the Government filed the Motion seeking summary
9
judgment on its claims against the Defendant. (Doc. 16) The Government filed a certificate
10
of indebtedness executed by Brad Yoder, a Loan Analyst of the Litigation Support Unit of
11
the U.S. Department of Education, alongside the Motion. (Doc. 17-1)
12
II.
Standard of Review
13
A court shall grant summary judgment if the pleadings and supporting documents,
14
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, “show that there is no genuine
15
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986).
17
Material facts are those facts “that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
18
law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine dispute of
19
material fact arises if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for
20
the nonmoving party.” Id.
21
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the
22
court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record, together with
23
affidavits, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
24
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the movant is able to do such, the burden then shifts to the non-
25
movant who, “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to
26
the material facts,” and instead must “come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there
27
28
2
The Government notes that the remaining balance under the Student Loan accounts
for approximately $411.06 in payments and Treasury Department offsets, as applicable.
2
1
is a genuine issue for trial.’” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S.
2
574, 586–87 (1986).
3
III.
Analysis
4
The Government is entitled to the unpaid principal and accrued interest on federally
5
insured student loans in default. 20 U.S.C. § 1080(a). The Government may establish a
6
prima facie case of student loan default by proving: (1) the defendant signed a promissory
7
note for a student loan; (2) the Government owns the promissory note signed by the
8
defendant; and (3) the promissory note has not been repaid or discharged. United States v.
9
Macy, 2012 WL 86820, at 1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 11, 2012); United States v. Falcon, 805 F.3d
10
873, 876 (9th Cir. 2015) (stating that the Government establishes a prima facie case by
11
presenting a certificate of indebtedness, signed under the penalty of perjury, showing a
12
debtor executed promissory notes to obtain student loans, defaulted on the loans, and owes
13
the Government a particular amount on the loans).
14
The Government may introduce evidence of the promissory note and a sworn
15
transcript of the account or certificate of indebtedness in order to prove its case. Macy,
16
2012 WL 86820, at 1 (citing United States v. Petroff-Kline, 557 F.3d 285, 290 (6th Cir.
17
2009)). Once a prima facie case is established, the defendant has the burden of proving the
18
nonexistence, extinguishment or variance in payment of the obligation. Id. Absent any
19
genuine disputes of material fact, such evidence warrants granting the Government
20
summary judgment in an action to collect on student debt. United States v. Gazanferi, 2016
21
WL 4491864, at 4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2016).
22
The Court finds that the Government made a prima facie showing that the Defendant
23
defaulted on the Student Loan. First, the Court notes that there is no genuine dispute as to
24
the material facts of this case, as the Defendant does not dispute (i) executing the
25
promissory note for the Student Loan; (ii) the Government’s ownership of the Student
26
Loan; or (iii) that the Student Loan has not been repaid or discharged. (Doc. 23 at 2, stating
27
“My recollection of the consolidation is reasonably similar.”).3 At most, the Defendant
28
3
1
argues that she cannot confirm the Government’s characterization of the amount due under
2
the Student Loan. However, the Court finds that the certificate of indebtedness filed as
3
Exhibit 1 to the Plaintiff’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 17-1), signed under penalty of perjury
4
by Loan Analyst Brad Yoder, and the promissory note filed as Exhibit 2 to the Plaintiff’s
5
Statement of Facts (Doc. 17-2) provides sufficient evidence of the balance due under the
6
Student Loan. Separately, the Defendant has not provided the Court with any evidence
7
demonstrating that the certificate of indebtedness provided by the Government is incorrect
8
or untrustworthy. Therefore, the Court must grant the Motion in favor of the Government.
9
Accordingly,
10
IT IS ORDERED:
11
1.
That Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) is granted;
12
2.
That judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff United States of America
13
against Defendant Danielle M. Baudhuin in the amount of $42,984.83 plus any additional
14
interest that has accrued from April 27, 2017 at the rate of 5.0% per annum, plus interest
15
from the date of this Order as provided by law;
16
17
18
19
20
3.
That the Government may submit its request for costs within 14 days of the
entry of this Order; and
4.
That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment
accordingly.
Dated this 17th day of April, 2019.
21
22
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?