United States Of America v. Andre
Filing
69
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND VACATING HEARING by Hon. William Alsup denying 56 Motion for Summary Judgment.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
No. C 11-04175 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
VACATING HEARING
STEVE ANDRE,
Defendant.
/
In this action to recover on two defaulted student loans, the United States moves for
17
summary judgment. Defendant Steve Andre, a licensed attorney proceeding pro se, opposes.
18
For the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED. The January 17 hearing is VACATED.
19
Denial of instant motion requires little analysis. Summary judgment is proper when the
20
pleadings and the evidence in the record “show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
21
fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FRCP 56(c). An issue
22
is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to find for the
23
non-moving party, and material only if the fact may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v.
24
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248–49 (1986).
25
Here, defendant disputes the authenticity of the promissory notes that undergird
26
plaintiff’s two claims for relief. Defendant states in a sworn declaration “under penalty of
27
perjury” that he “has no recollection” of loans asserted by plaintiff and denies that the signatures
28
on the promissory notes match his own (Dkt. No. 64 ¶ 3). Defendant further declares that the
1
student “loan or loans” that he took out as an undergraduate were from a different year than the
2
promissory notes asserted by plaintiff (see id. ¶ 2).
3
Plaintiff does not address these contentions in its reply. Plaintiff does not appear to have
4
taken the defendant’s deposition yet, and plaintiff does not otherwise establish that defendant has
5
filed a sham or perjurious declaration. On the present record, this order holds that defendant has
6
raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the promissory notes are authentic.
7
Accordingly, summary judgment is DENIED. The January 17 hearing is VACATED.
8
9
*
*
*
Defendant, without explanation, filed his opposition to plaintiff’s motion more than a
week late. Although defendant is proceeding pro se, he is a licensed attorney who should have
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
known better. Plaintiff requests that the late filing be disregarded. Doing so this first time
12
would operate as a default on the merits, and this order finds that such a harsh sanction is not
13
warranted. Defendant is admonished, however, to strictly adhere to all applicable deadlines and
14
rules in the future on pain of default or other appropriate sanction.
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: January 10, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?