United States of America v. Foreman
ORDER denying 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Defendant shall answer the Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this Order. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 7/15/2015. (SEN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No: 6:14-cv-1965-Orl-40DAB
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6),
filed February 5, 2015. On February 19, 2015, Plaintiff responded (Doc. 7). Upon
consideration, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied.
The Government brings the instant lawsuit to recover on several promissory notes
for federally-insured student loans executed by Defendant. In its two-count Complaint,
the Government alleges that Defendant has failed to pay the loans and that, as a result,
the loans are now in default. In total, the Government claims that Defendant owes more
than $73,000 in principal and interest on the loans. 2 Defendant now moves to dismiss
the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
This account of the facts is taken from the Government’s Complaint (Doc. 1), the
allegations of which the Court must accept as true in considering Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss. See Linder v. Portocarrero, 963 F.2d 332, 334 (11th Cir. 1992); Quality
Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989,
994 (11th Cir. 1983).
Broken down, the Government alleges that Defendant owes $30,379.92 in principal
and $42,709.54 in interest across the promissory notes, which continue to accrue
interest at 9% per annum.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In order to survive a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the
complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is plausible on its face when the plaintiff
alleges facts that “allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Mere legal
conclusions or recitation of the elements of a claim are not enough. Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555. District courts must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations within the complaint
as true. Id. Courts must also view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
and must resolve any doubts as to the sufficiency of the complaint in the plaintiff’s favor.
Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1994) (per curiam).
Defendant challenges the Complaint on the basis that it fails to state a claim for
the recovery of the promissory notes alleged. (Doc. 5, ¶ 6). In order to recover on a
promissory note for a federally-insured student loan, the Government must establish three
elements: (1) Defendant signed the promissory note, (2) the Government is the present
owner and holder of the promissory note, and (3) the promissory note is in default. United
States v. Romero, 562 F. App’x 943, 948 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam).
The Complaint easily satisfies these elements. The Government alleges that
“Defendant executed the promissory notes” and that it “is the present holder of the
defaulted loan debts.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 2). In support, the Government has attached to the
Complaint promissory notes bearing Defendant’s signatures and certificates of
indebtedness for the promissory notes reflecting that the Government currently owns and
holds the notes. (Id. Exs. A, B).
Finally, the Government shows that the notes are in
default because of Defendant’s failure to pay. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 6, 8; see also id. Exs. A, B). The
Complaint therefore states claims for the recovery of the underlying promissory notes.
For the aforementioned reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
2. Defendant shall answer the Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 15, 2015.
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
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?