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.

United States v. Franklin

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

May 14, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
KYLE K. FRANKLIN, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE, District Judge.

In this case brought by the United States against individual defendant Kyle Franklin, the government moves for summary judgment of each of its four claims for failure to pay the amount due and owing on various student loans. Dkt. # 23. Defendant has not consented or filed an opposition to the motion. Mr. Franklin's only participation in the litigation has been to mail a letter to the government acknowledging his debts and explaining his financial hardship in February 2012. The clerk's office received a copy and filed the letter on behalf of Defendant as an "Answer." See Dkt. # 4. Defendant has not consented to this Court's jurisdiction despite the Court's request, and has not filed any opposition to the Government's motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and hereby vacates the hearing set for May 14, 2013. Because Defendant has not consented to this Court's jurisdiction, the Court issues this Report and Recommendation that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be granted and judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff, and hereby reassigns this case to a district judge.

I. Background

The complaint contains four claims, dealing with four different types of student loans.

A. First claim

On or about May 18, 1987, January 7, 1988, September 28, 1988 and January 23, 1989, Defendant signed promissory notes to secure loans in the amount of $2, 500, $700, $2, 500, and $2, 500 respectively. These loans were disbursed at 8.00 percent interest per annum. See Declaration of Rubio Canlas ("Canlas Decl.") at ¶¶ 3-7, Exs. 1-5. The notes were guaranteed by California Student Aid Commission and reinsured by the Department of Education under loan guaranty programs authorized under Title IV-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Canlas Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 2.

The holder demanded payment according to the terms of the notes and credited $458.86 to the outstanding principal. When Defendant defaulted in 1991, the holder filed a claim on the loan guarantee and the guaranty agency paid $7, 312.24 on the claim. Id . The guarantor was reimbursed by the Department of Education and assigned its right and title to the loans to the Department of Education. Canlas Decl. Ex. 1 ¶ 3. No amount has been credited to the balance since the assignment, and Defendant now owes $5, 797.73 in principal, and $8, 862.84 in interest as of the hearing date of May 14, 2013 for a total of $14, 660.57, plus $1.27 per day thereafter until the date judgment is entered. Canlas Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 1.

B. Second claim

On or about January 28, 1988, Defendant executed promissory notes for loans of $1, 800, $750, and $1, 250 from the University of San Francisco under the federally-funded National Defense Direct Student Loan (now Perkins Student Loan) programs authorized under Title IV, Part E of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Canlas Decl. ¶ 9-10; Ex. 6-7. Defendant defaulted on these loans on January 2, 1992 and they were assigned to the Department of Education. Canlas Decl. Ex. 6 ¶ 2. After crediting cancellations and payments, Defendant owed $311.29 in principal and $140.09 in interest. Id . ¶ 3.

On August 25, 2004, the funds were distributed by Direct Loans in the amount of $111, 781.64 to pay off the balances of the six loans, which an overpayment adjustment of $29.47 credited to the account on October 12, 2004. Canlas Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. 7. Payments were made on the loan balance in the amount of $5, 180.48, which was applied to interest only. Canlas Decl. ¶ 13. No amount has been credited to the balance since the assignment, and Defendant now owes $311.29 in principal, and $226.81 in interest as of the hearing date of May 14, 2013 for a total of $538.10, plus $0.04 per day thereafter until the date judgment is entered. Canlas Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 6.

C. Third Claim

On or about October 2, 1990, Defendant executed a promissory note for a loan of $7, 500 from Great Western Savings. The loan was disbursed at 8.00 percent interest per annum. See Canlas Decl. at ¶¶ 12-13, Exs. 8-9. The note was guaranteed by California Student Aid Commission and reinsured by the Department of Education under loan guaranty programs authorized under Title IV-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Id.

The holder demanded payment according to the terms of the note and credited $0.00 to the outstanding principal. When Defendant defaulted in 1993, the holder filed a claim on the loan guarantee and the guaranty agency paid $8, 239.58 on the claim. Id . Ex. 8. The guarantor was reimbursed by the Department of Education and assigned its right and title to the loans to the Department of Education. Canlas Decl. Ex.8. No amount has been credited to the balance since the assignment, and Defendant now owes $8, 239.58 in principal, and $13, 234.02 in interest as of the ...


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.