United States of America v. Hill

Filing 34

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 25 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-6498 EMC

KAIJA HILL, aka Kay Hill,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 25)
13
14
15

Plaintiff the United States has filed suit against Defendant Kaija Hill to obtain a judgment

16

against Ms. Hill for the outstanding debt that she allegedly owes on a student loan promissory note.

17

The government has moved for summary judgment. Ms. Hill failed to file a written opposition to

18

the motion. Having considered the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS the government’s motion.

19
20

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In support of its summary judgment motion, the government has submitted a declaration

21

from Lynda Faatalale, a loan analyst for the Department of Education. In the declaration, Ms.

22

Faatalale states that she is the custodian of records for the Education Department with respect to a

23

direct consolidation loan obtained by Ms. Hill from the government. See Faatalale Decl. ¶ 2.

24

According to Ms. Faatalale, Ms. Hill executed a single promissory note for a consolidation

25

(refinance) of a single student loan. See Faatalale Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. Ms. Hill signed the note on April

26

15, 2002. See Faatalale Decl., Ex. 2 (note). The Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Verification

27

Certificate reflects that the total payoff amount for the loan, as of April 25, 2002, was $6,887.35.

28

See Faatalale Decl., Ex. 3 (certificate). However, until the date the loan proceeds were actually

1

disbursed, interest and collection costs continued to accrue. See Faatalale Decl. ¶ 5. Thus,

2

ultimately, on May 14, 2002, when the loan proceeds were disbursed, the total payoff amount was

3

$6,920.60. See Faatalale Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 3. Interest on the note was 8% per annum. See Faatalale

4

Decl. ¶ 6 & Ex. 3.

5

On March 11, 2003, Ms. Hill defaulted on the loan. See Faatalale Decl. ¶ 7 & Ex. 3. It

6

appears that Ms. Hill never made a single payment on the loan. See Faatalale Decl. ¶ 8 & Exs. 2, 4.

7

The government never waived the debt owed by Ms. Hill, and therefore, according to Ms. Faatalale,

8

Ms. Hill owes not only the $6,920.60 but also interest in the amount of $5,977.03 as of February 28,

9

2013, plus $1.52 per day until the date judgment is entered. See Faatalale Decl. ¶ 9.
As noted above, Ms. Hill never filed an opposition to the government’s summary judgment

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

motion. In fact, during this lawsuit, Ms. Hill has never made any substantive filing other than her

12

answer (in letter form), in which she denies having taken out the loan, see Docket No. 7 (answer)

13

(stating that “I have no recollection of any Student Loans that would be in my name on or before

14

[April 15, 2002]”; adding that “I have not attended any type of educational program in over twenty

15

three years, never having any type of a Student Loan in my name”), and in which she mentions that

16

she had her identity stolen in June 1993. Ms. Hill’s answer, however, does not include any evidence

17

to support either claim.

18
19
20

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a “court shall grant summary judgment if

21

the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled

22

to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The rule also provides that “[a] party

23

asserting that a fact cannot be or is not genuinely disputed must support the assertion by [e.g.] citing

24

to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored

25

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations . . . , admissions, interrogatory answers, or other

26

materials.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). An issue of fact is genuine only if there is sufficient evidence for

27

a reasonable jury to find for the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.

28

242, 248-49 (1986). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence . . . will be insufficient; there

2

1

must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmoving party].” Id. at 252.

2

At the summary judgment stage, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the

3

nonmoving party and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in the nonmovant’s favor. See id. at

4

255.

5

Where the plaintiff has the ultimate burden of proof, as here, it may prevail on a motion for

6

summary judgment only if it affirmatively demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to every

7

essential element of its claim. See River City Mkts., Inc. v. Fleming Foods W., Inc., 960 F.2d 1458,

8

1462 (9th Cir. 1992).

9

B.

17

In an action to enforce a promissory note, the plaintiff must
present evidence of: 1) the existence of the note; 2) the defendant’s
default, and 3) the amount due. “The burden then shifts to the
defendant to prove that the amount due is not owing.” For example, in
United States v. Freeman [No. 01-1859, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5094
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2002)], the court held that “[P]laintiff has made
out a prima facie case through submission of the signed promissory
notes and certificates of indebtedness from the Department of
Education.” Similarly, in United States v. Chu [No. 00-3450, 2001
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18086 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2001)], the court held that
“Plaintiff has established a prima facie case by presenting evidence of
the existence of the notes, defendant’s default and the amount due on
the notes.” In both Freeman and Chu, the court granted the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment because the defendant failed to identify
specific evidencing rebutting plaintiff’s prima facie case.

18

United States v. Gray, No. C-11-02988 SLM (JCS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65827, at *11-12 (N.D.

19

Cal. May 10, 2012); see also United States v. Chromy, 437 Fed. Appx. 593, 593 (9th Cir. 2011)

20

(concluding that “[t]he district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the United

21

States because the undisputed facts show that [defendant] obtained a student loan and then defaulted

22

on it”).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Prima Facie Case

12
13
14
15
16

23

In the instant case, the government has laid out a prima facie case of each of the above

24

elements. That is, it has submitted evidence that Ms. Hill signed the promissory note, that she

25

defaulted on the note, and that she owes $6,920.60 as of April or May 2012, with interest accruing at

26

a rate of 8% per annum. Because Ms. Hill failed to file an opposition to the government’s motion,

27
28

3

1

these facts stand unrebutted.1 See also Monet v. Chase Home Fin. LLC, No. 10-CV-00135-LHK,

2

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94362, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011) (noting that, “[i]the absence of an

3

opposition, Rule 56 permits the Court to consider all facts raised by the moving party as undisputed

4

for purposes of the summary judgment motion”). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the

5

government is entitled to summary judgment.2

6

III.

CONCLUSION

Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of the government as follows: $6,920.60

9

in principal plus $5,998.31 in interest as of March 14, 2013, and an additional $1.52 in interest3 until

10

the day that judgment is entered. The Clerk of the Court is further instructed to close the file in this

11
For the Northern District of California

For the foregoing reasons, the government’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The

8

United States District Court

7

case.

12

This order disposes of Docket No. 25.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: March 19, 2013

17

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
1

21
22
23
24

Because the facts are unrebutted, the Court need not address the merits of the government’s
contention that an identity theft defense must be raised during administrative proceedings and cannot
be asserted during a collection action. See, e.g., United States v. Wright, 87 F. Supp. 2d 464, 466
(D. Md. 2000) (noting that “[a]n individual who believes a loan was fraudulently signed or obtained
in her name may seek discharge from the Secretary of Education but must follow the procedures
outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations [34 C.F.R. § 685.213][;] [o]nly the Secretary, not this
Court, has discretion to discharge the loan”).
2

25
26
27

The Court notes that it has roughly confirmed the amount of interest that should be due. At
an annual rate of 8%, interest would amount to $553.65 per year (i.e., $6,920.60 x 8%) or $46.14 per
month. From May 14, 2002 -- the date that loan proceeds were disbursed -- until March 14, 2013 -the date of the hearing, 130 months have passed. $46.14 x 130 = $5,998.20. Under the
government’s calculation, interest due as of March 14, 2013, would be $5,998.31.
3

28

At an annual rate of 8%, interest would amount to $553.65 per year (i.e., $6,920.60 x 8%)
or $1.52 per day (i.e., $553.65 ÷ 365 days).

4