United States of America v. Jackson
ORDER denying plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Judgment 14 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Case No. 17-10131
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT (DOC. 14)
The Court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on August
3, 2017. (Doc. 13). The Court did not enter a judgment on that date,
however, because it did not have sufficient documentation to establish the
amount of defendant’s debt. Plaintiff was ordered to show cause to prove
this amount by August 24, 2017. (Doc. 13 at PageID 53).
Plaintiff responded by filing a Motion for Entry of Judgment. (Doc.
14). This motion included the affidavit of Laura Bevan, a loan analyst with
the Department of Education, who stated that defendant owes plaintiff
$3,933.01. (Doc. 14-1). This sum is based on $3,477.50 in damages,
$55.51 in interest that accrued between January 16, 2017 and August 23,
2017, and $400.00 in “costs and attorneys’ fees.” (Doc. 14-1 at PageID
59). The Court finds this information insufficient.
It appears that defendant has a principal loan balance of $1,156.66.1
(Doc. 7-3 at PageID 26). It is not clear how much interest has accrued on
that balance. In a certificate of indebtedness dated January 22, 1998,
$524.58 in interest had purportedly accrued on the $1,156.66 principal. It
is not clear how much interest accrued between January 23, 1998 and
January 16, 2017, when plaintiff filed its complaint. The Court, therefore,
cannot determine that the principal and interest that accrued prior to the
filing of the Complaint amount to the $3,477.50 that plaintiff requests.
Discrepancies in the affidavits of U.S. Department of Education loan
analysts cause the Court to further question this figure. Here, plaintiff relies
on Bevan’s affidavit stating that defendant is indebted in the amount of
“$3,477.50, together with interest from the date of filing the Complaint.”
(Doc. 14-1 at PageID 59). But, in its Motion for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff has submitted several different figures regarding defendant’s principal. The Compliant
lists defendant’s principal as $1,156.66. (Doc. 1 at PageID 1). The Certificate of Indebtedness
attached to the Complaint and plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment also lists the principal
as $1,156.66. (Doc. 1 at PageID 3; Doc. 7-3 at PageID 26). Plaintiff does not list defendant’s
principal in its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 7). It did, however, state that the loan
disbursed in the amount of $46,300.52. (Doc. 7 at PageID 17). Plaintiff’s reply brief
acknowledged that its motion incorrectly overstated the amount of the loan. (Doc. 11 at PageID
36). Plaintiff then asserted that the correct amount, as set forth in the Certificate of
Indebtedness, is $2,625.00. (Id.). But the Certificate of Indebtedness does not include any
figure in the amount of $2,625.00. (Doc. 1 at PageID 3; Doc. 7-3 at PageID 26).
plaintiff relied on the affidavit of Christopher Bolander, which stated that
defendant is indebted in the amount of “$3,448.09, together with interest
from the date of the filing of the Complaint.” (Doc. 7-4 at PageID 28).
Plaintiff’s motion is, therefore, DENIED without prejudice. The Court
requires additional information and documentation regarding defendant’s
debt before it will enter judgment. The Court further cautions plaintiff from
merely filing another affidavit listing a damages figure without specifying
how much is owed on the principal balance, how much interest accrued on
that balance prior to January 16, 2017, and how these figures were
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 30, 2017
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
August 30, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on Maurice Jackson, 29889 Rousseau Drive, Novi, MI 48377.
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?