United States of America v. Horowitz

Filing 8

ORDER granting 6 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (JOwe)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 10-14091

MARVIN I. HOROWITZ,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 6)
I.
This is a student loan case. In 1997, defendant borrowed $8,400.00 from the
United States Department of Education for an educational loan. Defendant signed a
promissory note, in which he agreed to repay the loan. In 2009, defendant defaulted.
Plaintiff has sued defendant1 for repayment. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment, seeking entry of a judgment in the amount of loan plus interest. For
the reasons that follow, the motion will be granted.
II.
Defendant has not responded to plaintiff’s motion.2 That fact alone does not
warrant summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor. As the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit has explained:
1

2

Defendant is proceeding pro se.

Plaintiff filed its motion on March 21, 2011. Under the local rules, plaintiffs’ response
was due within 21 days after service, on or about April 14, 2011. See E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(e)(1)(B). On April 25, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring a response on or before
May 16, 2011. Doc. 7. To date, no response has been filed. In light of defendant’s failure to
respond, the Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2).

[U]nder Rule 56(c), a party moving for summary judgment always bears the
burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue as to a material fact.
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d
142 (1970). Although subsequent Supreme Court cases have redefined the
movant's initial burden, see, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986),
the requirement that the movant bears the initial burden has remained unaltered.
See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. at 2553; Street v. J.C. Bradford, 886
F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir.1989). More importantly for all purposes, the movant
must always bear this initial burden regardless if an adverse party fails to
respond. Adickes, 398 U.S. at 161, 90 S.Ct. at 1610; Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751
F.2d 171, 173–174 (6th Cir.1984); Felix v. Young, 536 F.2d 1126, 1135 (6th
Cir.1976). In other words, a district court cannot grant summary judgment in
favor of a movant simply because the adverse party has not responded. The
court is required, at a minimum, to examine the movant's motion for summary
judgment to ensure that he has discharged that burden.
Carver v. Bunch, 946 F.2d 451, 454–55 (6th Cir. 1991); cf. Advisory Committee Note on
1963 Amendment to Subdivision (e) of Fed R. Civ. P. 56 (explaining that the
amendment was not “designed to affect the ordinary standards applicable to the
summary judgment motion,” and that “[w]here the evidentiary matter in support of the
motion does not establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment must be
denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented”).
Here, plaintiff has met its summary judgment burden. Attached to the motion are
documents which evidence the loan, defendant’s repayment obligation, and defendant’s
default and indebtedness. As further explained in plaintiff’s papers, defendant has no
valid defenses to plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

2

is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall submit a form of judgment in the amount of the loan, plus
pre-judgment interest to date.
SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
S/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 1, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Marvin I. Horowitz
26677 W. 12 Mile Rd, Suite 118, Southfield, MI 48034 and the attorneys of record on
this date, June 1, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Julie Owens
Case Manager, [phone]

3