Marek v. Navient Corporation et al

Filing 19

Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation to grant 11 Defendant's Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim . Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 1/4/2017. (R,D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

ROBERT MAREK,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
NAVIENT CORPORATION,
Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:16CV2031
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Objections (ECF DKT #17) to
the Report and Recommendation (ECF DKT #16) of Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz,
recommending that the Court grant the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant. For the
following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Ruiz’s Report and
Recommendation and grants the Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. (ECF DKT#11).
BACKGROUND
The following is a factual synopsis of Plaintiff’s claims. The Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation provides a more complete and detailed discussion of the
facts.

Plaintiff’s Complaint begins by acknowledging that he borrowed over $130,000
between 1995 and 2000 in student loans under the federal Parent Loan for
Undergraduate Students program for his three children. On July 11, 2016, Plaintiff
applied for an Income-Sensitive Repayment (“ISR”) plan. After submitting a renewed
application on August 1, 2016, Plaintiff received two responses, one stated that the
application could not be processed, the other that Plaintiff’s application for an ISR plan
had been approved and that his new monthly payment would be $1,863.07 for the next
twelve months and that he would have to reapply annually for an ISR plan. Plaintiff then
requested a loan payment amount of $518.02. Defendant refused to accept the lower
payment amount.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In order to survive a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the pleadings must satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); “A pleading
that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual
allegations. A party is only obligated to provide greater detail than simple labels,
conclusions, or recitations of the elements needed for a cause of action. Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The pleading must suggest that the
allegation is plausible, not just possible. Yet, it does not have to demonstrate probability;
just enough factual information to create an expectation that discovery will uncover
evidence supporting the claim. Id. at 556. The pleading must “nudge claims across the
line from conceivable to plausible” in order to survive a 12(b)(6) motion. Id. at 570. When
looking at these allegations for purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court must accept as
true all of the claims in the pleading, except legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). These factual allegations cannot be mere conclusory statements. Id.

-2-

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. In the Motion to Dismiss Defendant asserts that there is no
actual case or controversy that exists between the parties. “It is clear that the declaratory
judgment procedure is available in the federal courts only in cases involving actual
controversies and may not be used to obtain an advisory opinion in a controversy not yet
arisen.” United Pub. Workers of Am. (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 116, 67 S. Ct. 556,
577, 91 L. Ed. 754 (1947) (citing Coffman v. Breeze Corporations, 323 U.S. 316, 324,
325, 65 S.Ct. 298, 302, 303, 89 L.Ed. 264 (1945)); accord Quicken Loans Inc. v. United
States, 152 F. Supp. 3d 938, 953 (E.D. Mich. 2015); Bowers v. Wacker Silicone Corp.,
601 F. Supp. 2d 964, 971 (N.D. Ohio 2008).
The Magistrate Judge correctly points out that the loans in question were made
pursuant to an agreement made between Plaintiff and the party making the loan, the
agreement was not breached, the amounts were not miscalculated and Plaintiff has been
correctly credited with all payments made. Plaintiff simply complains that Defendant
should have approved the repayment amount that Plaintiff wants to make. The Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not assert an
independent cause of action or a request for an adjudication of clearly established legal
rights.
Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with any law suggesting that declaratory
judgement is available in this case. In Plaintiff’s Objections he contends that Defendant is
a predatory lender and seeks to have the Court declare that Defendant’s actions are
wrong or without justification. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff’s
argument is untenable. Plaintiff acknowledges that he owes the money and the Court
finds that the monthly payment expected by Defendant does not violate any terms of an
original or pre-existing agreement.

-3-

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly applied the pertinent law and
therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF DKT #16) is
ADOPTED. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: 1/4/2017
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge

-4-