Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U Nited S Tates of A Merica v. L Ouise D Ennis

June 18, 2012

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
L OUISE D ENNIS, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph F. Bianco United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH F. BIANCO, District Judge: exhibits.*fn1 Upon consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the Court shall Plaintiff United States of America ("plaintiff" or "United States") brought this action against Louise Dennis ("defendant" due as a result of defendant's alleged unpaid Plaintiff has filed an "Affirmation in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment" which outlines the student loan. relevant facts of this case, (Aff. in Support, Jan. 26, 2012, ECF No. 45), and plaintiff notified defendant

Plaintiff now moves for summary of the requirements of Local Civil Rule 56.1 through judgment, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal the service of the "Notice to Pro Se Litigant Who Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons Opposes a Motion for Summary Judgment." (Notice, set forth below, the Court grants plaintiff's Jan. 19, 2012, ECF No. 40-1; Cert. of Service, Jan. 19, 2012, ECF No. 41; Aff. in Support, Jan. 26, 2012, motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 45.) "A district court has broad discretion to determine whether to overlook a party's failure to comply with local court rules." Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 73 (2d Cir. 2001); see also

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Gilani v. GNOC Corp., No. 04 Civ. 2935 (ILG), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23397, at *4-5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25,

The Court has taken the facts set forth 2006) (exercising court's discretion to overlook the parties' failure to submit statements pursuant to Local

below from the parties' affirmations and Civil Rule 56.1). Here, the evidentiary basis for the plaintiff's motion is straightforward and clear, rendering the need for a Rule 56.1 statement unnecessary for defendant to respond to the motion, or for the Court to consider the motion. Accordingly, construe the facts in the light most favorable disbursed for $30,153.96 on March 21, 2003 to the non-moving party. See Capobianco v. at 7 percent interest per annum. (Pl.'s Ex. City of New York, 422 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. B, Certificate of Indebtedness, ECF No. 45-2005). 2.) The loan was made by the DOE under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Defendant applied for and was approved Program. (Id.) The DOE demanded for a Direct Consolidation loan for a total payment according to the terms of the note, principal amount of $30,153.96 ("the loan"). and defendant defaulted on the obligation on (Pl.'s Ex. B, Certificate of Indebtedness, February 1, 2004. (Id.)

ECF No. 45-2; Pl.'s Ex. C, Direct Loan Repayment Plan Selection & Application Pursuant to the Certificate of and Promissory Note, ECF No. 45-2.) In Indebtedness ("COI"), sworn to under exchange for the loan, defendant executed penalties of perjury by a Loan Analyst for and delivered to the United States the Department of Education, defendant Department of Education ("DOE") her owed plaintiff $44,400.61 as of September promissory note, dated February 2, 2003, in 10, 2010. (Id.) The DOE had credited a total the principal amount of $24,481.99.*fn2 (Pl.'s of $1,920.00 in payments from all sources, Ex. C, Direct Loan Repayment Plan including Treasury Department offsets, if Selection & Application and Promissory any, to the balance. (Id.) Interest on the Note, ECF No. 45-2.) The loan was loan accrued on the principal of $30,153.96 at $5.78 per day. (Id.)

in the exercise of its broad discretion, the Court will overlook this defect and will deem admitted only Defendant has made numerous filings in

those facts in plaintiff's affirmation in support of connection with this case. As discussed

summary judgment that are supported by admissible evidence and not controverted by other admissible infra, her arguments in these filings are

evidence in the record. See Jessamy v. City of New largely incomprehensible and without merit.

Rochelle, 292 F. Supp. 2d 498, 504 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). However, her filings do not provide any

Thus, in the instant case, although the parties failed to evidence to controvert the above-referenced

submit Local Rule 56.1 statements, the Court has facts.

carefully reviewed the evidence submitted in both parties' papers and has determined that plaintiff has set forth detailed evidence fully supporting its claim, B. Procedural Background

and defendant has failed to submit any evidence to demonstrate the existence of any genuine issues of Plaintiff ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.