HICA EDUCATION LOAN CORPORATION v. FIDELIBUS

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting Pltf's 15 Motion for Summary Judgment; directing Pltf to provide the Court with a proposed Order of Judgment w/in 10 days. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/2/2015. (drw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

HICA EDUCATION LOAN
CORPORATION,
CIVIL NO. 14-2704(NLH)(JS)
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION &
ORDER

v.
JAMES C. FIDELIBUS,
Defendant.

APPEARANCES:
ROBERT THOMAS LIEBER, JR
WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., LPA
325 CHESTNUT ST
SUITE 501
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106
On behalf of plaintiff
JAMES C. FIDELIBUS
1004 SAINT MARK DRIVE
GLENDORA, NJ 08029
Appearing pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
WHEREAS, plaintiff, HICA Education Loan Corporation,
commenced this civil action seeking to recover payments under a
promissory note signed by defendant, James C. Fidelibus, on May
2, 1994, pursuant to the United States Health Education
Assistance Loan (HEAL) Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 292, 294 et seq.
and 42 C.F.R. 60; 1 and

1

The HEAL program is federal program governed by the Code of

The note having been assigned to plaintiff by the Student
Loan Marketing Association (SLMA), and therefore plaintiff is
the holder of the note; and
Plaintiff alleging that defendant has failed to make
payments owed under the terms of the note; and
Defendant having filed his answer to plaintiff’s complaint,
denying his liability; but
Thereafter, defendant having not participated in the
discovery process; and
Plaintiff having moved for summary judgment, arguing that:
(1) There is no dispute that defendant signed the Note;
(2) There is no dispute that defendant defaulted in his
agreement to repay the Note;
(3) There is no dispute that plaintiff is the owner and
holder of the Note; and
(4) There is no dispute of the amounts that are due and
owing under the terms of the Note; and
The Court observing that summary judgment is appropriate
where the Court is satisfied that the materials in the record,
including depositions, documents, electronically stored

Federal Regulations, and borrowers under the HEAL program are
required to repay the loan in accordance with the agreed upon
repayment schedule. 42 C.F.R § 60.8(b)(4) (1992). Because a
default on a HEAL program loan is a violation of the Code of
Federal Regulations, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over HICA's claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
2

information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations,
admissions, or interrogatory answers, demonstrate that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a); and
The Court further observing that in circumstances where a
nonmoving party fails to oppose the motion, Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e) provides that the court may, among other relief, consider
the facts undisputed for purposes of the motion and grant
summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials —
including the facts considered undisputed — show that the movant
is entitled to it; and
The Court finding that evidence in the record demonstrates
that defendant owes to plaintiff unpaid principal on the Note in
the amount of $14,363.09, plus accrued, unpaid interest; 2 and
The Court further finding that with defendant not providing
any evidence to refute that he has defaulted on his loan and
owes plaintiff for unpaid principal and interest, defendant’s
general denial of liability in his answer is insufficient to

2

The original amount of the loan was $40,867.42. Plaintiff
demonstrates that it is entitled to interest in the amount of
$385.02 (calculated through December 17, 2014, which is the date
it filed its motion), with interest continuing to accrue after
December 17, 2014 to the date of judgment at the rate of $1.03
per day.
3

withstand summary judgment, see Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 256-57 (1986) (explaining that to withstand a
properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving
party must identify specific facts and affirmative evidence that
contradict those offered by the moving party); Saldana v. Kmart
Corp., 260 F.3d 228, 232 (3d Cir. 2001) (explaining that a party
opposing summary judgment must do more than just rest upon mere
allegations, general denials, or vague statements); and
Therefore, the Court finding that plaintiff is entitled to
judgment in its favor on its claim that defendant defaulted on
the loan and that it is owed unpaid principal and accrued
interest;
Accordingly,
IT IS on this

2nd

day of

July

, 2015

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [15]
be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED that within 10 days, plaintiff shall provide the
Court with a proposed Order of Judgment, which includes the
appropriate calculation of interest.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

4