United States of America v. Bright
ORDER AND REASONS GRANTING 61 Motion for Relief from Judgment as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Martin L.C. Feldman on 2/8/2017. (mmv)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Ray Bright’s motion for relief from
judgment pursuant to Rule 60.
For the reasons that follow, the
motion is GRANTED.
The Court assumes familiarity with the background of this
student loan default case, more completely summarized in this
Court’s December 21, 2011 Order and Reasons, as well as this
Court’s consideration of Mr. Bright’s prior request to seal certain
records, discussed in this Court’s March 25, 2013 Order and Reasons
and, most recently, in its January 26, 2017 Order and Reasons.
After issuing an Order and Reasons in which the Court granted
the government’s motion for summary judgment, a judgment was
entered against Ray Bright for $172,224.44 plus interest at the
daily rate of $34.22 from April 19, 2011 to the date of the final
judgment, plus post-judgment interest at the rate established
under 28 U.S.C. § 1961, and costs of the proceedings.
Judgment dtd. 12/28/11.
Mr. Bright previously sought relief from
that judgment on the ground that his student loan debt had been
discharged, but the Court denied the motion without prejudice as
premature because the discharge of indebtedness was conditional in
requirements during a post-discharge monitoring period ... for
three years from ... June 28, 2012.”
See Order and Reasons dtd.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Bright, 540 Fed.Appx. 376 (5th Cir. 2013).
See United States v.
Now that the post-
discharge monitoring period has expired, Mr. Bright seeks relief
from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5).
authorizes the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment when
“the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable.”
Bright submits that the money judgment based on the student
loan debt was discharged and the post-discharge conditions have
The government confirms that Bright’s defaulted
loans that form the basis of this Court’s December 28, 2011
judgment were discharged; accordingly, the government does not
oppose Bright’s motion for relief from judgment.
government objects to language in Bright’s proposed order that
provides that the United States is to “bear the costs” in these
proceedings; because the court costs previously awarded to the
United States as a prevailing party are not included in the United
States Department of Education’s discharge, and because the costs
were paid prior to Bright’s discharge, the government submits that
Bright’s motion for relief from judgment should not affect the
Court’s prior imposition of costs in favor of the United States.
The Court agrees.
Bright’s student loan debt was discharged and the postdischarge conditions have been satisfied.
Accordingly, IT IS
ORDERED: that Bright’s motion for relief from judgment is hereby
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that the final judgment, entered
on December 28, 2011 against Ray A. Bright in the amount of
$172,224.44 plus interest at the daily rate of $34.22 from April
19, 2011 to the date of final judgment plus post judgment interest
at the rate established by 28 U.S.C. § 1961, has been discharged
and said judgment is hereby set aside in its entirety, preserving
only the United States’ prior award of costs; otherwise, said
judgment is of no further force or effect.
New Orleans, Louisiana, February __, 2017
MARTIN L.C. FELDMAN
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
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?