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.

Lima v. United States Department of Education

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 31, 2017

CHARLES LIMA, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER FILED APRIL 25, 2017

          Kevin S.C. Chang United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Charles Lima's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Filed April 25, 2017, filed May 4, 2017. Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation (“ECMC”) filed an Opposition on May 18, 2017 and Plaintiff filed a Reply on May 29, 2017. This matter is suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(e) of the Local Rules of Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (“Local Rules”). For the reasons articulated below, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

         BACKGROUND

         On April 25, 2017, this Court issued an Order: (1) Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and (2) Granting Defendant Educational Credit Management Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment (“SJ Order”), wherein the Court made the following pertinent findings and/or conclusions: 1) 31 U.S.C. § 3716 does not provide a private cause of action; 2) ECMC is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), but even if it was, the fiduciary exception set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(F)(i) would preclude liability because ECMC is a guaranty agency that owes a fiduciary duty to the Department of Education (“DOE”) and its actions were incidental to its fiduciary obligation; 3) Plaintiff's Fifth Amendment Due Process claim failed as a matter of law because ECMC is not a governmental actor and its actions did not constitute federal action; 4) none of the factors relevant to the inquiry of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction favored retaining jurisdiction as to Plaintiff's conversion claim, and even if the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction, it would grant summary judgment in ECMC's favor on the claim; and 5) given the granting of ECMC's motion, there were no claims remaining upon which to award the relief sought via Plaintiff's motion. Doc. No. 100.

         ANALYSIS

         Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court's SJ Order pursuant to Local Rule 60.1(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 60(b)(1) and (6). Plaintiff argues that the Court erred in three respects: 1) by failing to determine whether or not ECMC is a holder of the Notes and misrelying on evidence; 2) by finding that ECMC was not liable under the FDCPA; and 3) deciding matters not pleaded; namely that the Court summarily transformed the basis of the garnishment.

         Local Rule 60.1 provides three grounds for reconsideration of interlocutory orders:

(a) Discovery of new material facts not previously available;
(b) Intervening change in law;
(c) Manifest error of law or fact.

         Local Rule 60.1. Insofar as Local Rule 60.1 pertains to interlocutory orders, it is inapplicable to the SJ Order.

         FRCP 60(b) permits relief from final judgments, orders, or proceedings. Such a motion may be granted on any one of six grounds:[1]

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it ...

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.