Buy This Entire Record For
Roby v. Sallie Mae, Inc.
United States District Court, Ninth Circuit
May 22, 2013
CHERYL ROBY, DBA CHURCH FOR KING IMMANUEL, Plaintiff,
SALLIE MAE, INC., AS AGENT FOR SLM EDUCATION CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, SLM EDUCATION CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, ACADEMIC MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP, ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES, FIRST TRUST FINANCIAL, GENERAL REVENUE CORPORATION, GRP JUDGMENT FINANCIAL SERVICES, NELLIE MAE, PIONEER CREDITY RECOVERY INC., JS-6 SALLIE MAE BANK, SALLIE MAE HOME LOANS, SALLIE MAE INC, SLM FINANCIAL CORPORATION, STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, STUDENT LOAN FINANCE ASSOCIATION, UPROMISE, FANNIE MAE, FARMER MAC, FREDDIE MAC, GINNIE MAE, and USA FUNDS, Defendants.
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.
On April 1, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 750 of the above Court, the following Motions to Dismiss came before the Court for hearing before the Honorable John A. Kronstadt:
1. Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint; and Motion for More Definite Statement (Dkt. 84);
2. Defendants Sallie Mae, Inc. ("SMI") and SLM Education Credit Finance Corporations' ("SLM ECFC") Motion to Dismiss, in which Defendants General Revenue Corporation, Nellie Mae Corporation, Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc., Sallie Mae Bank, SLM Financial Corporation, Student Loan Finance Association, Inc., Upromise, Inc., Arrow Financial Services, L.L.C., Academic Management Services Corp., GRP Financial Services Corp., Southwest Student Services Corporation and United Student Aid Funds, Inc. ("USA Funds") ("Unrelated Defendants") joined (Dkt. 86);
3. Defendant Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 89);
4. Defendant Ginnie Mae's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 90); and
5. Defendant United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD")'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 98).
After considering the moving and opposition papers, the argument of counsel and all other evidence and matters presented to the Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1. That the Motions to Dismiss identified as Dkts. 84, 89, and 90 are granted with prejudice, and Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants is dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and without leave to amend;
2. That the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 86) is granted, and Plaintiff's complaint against Defendants is dismissed in its entirety, without leave to amend in this action, but without prejudice to Plaintiff pursing any appropriate remedy before the Superior Court solely with respect to the enforcement of the settlement agreement entered in Sallie Mae v. Roby, Case No. SCISS-137005, San Bernardino Superior Court.
3. That HUD's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 98) is granted, and that Defendant HUD is dismissed from this action, but without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing any appropriate administrative remedies and later pursuing a separate lawsuit if doing so is appropriate with respect to any cognizable claims that Plaintiff has as a result of her participation in a Section 8 program.
4. That the Plaintiff shall take nothing by the First Amended Complaint; and
5. That Judgment on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint shall be entered forthwith in favor of ...