Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

/ . . II,
.i£féé " I u- l I
..... aecemo . . .. sir I .
I . E
2 A oct 2 998 __ I
__ 1 .......2
3 I . . J .-: ts . zsrrv COURT
4 —tI.I ‘:T§§§?f“¤’?¤P.¤rr
5 J
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8 c
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. CIV 97-700—'I`UC—WFN
10 Plaintiff, i ORDER I
1 I vs. i
12 MARC R. MONDRAGON, KIM Z.;
MONDRAGON, husband and wii`e,, )
I3 Defendant. i
14 )
15
16 This suit is brought by the United States against Mare R. Mondragon and Kim Mondragon to
1 7 collect on Health Education Assistance Loans ("HEAL") made in the l980’s to fimd Marc Mondragon’s
18 dental education. Defendants requested and were granted at least six forbearance periods. The loans
19 were ultimately assigned to the United Sates. According to the United States, Defendants defaulted on
20 the loans and now owe $199,805.00 in principle and $4,595.00 in interest. g
21 Defendants do not dispute the existence or the amount of the loans. They assert that as part of
22 their March 12, 1991 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on March l2, 1991, they settled with the United States and
23 set up a repayment schedule. According to Defendants, a form ofjudgment was to be prepared by the
24 United States and submitted to the bankruptcy court. This was never done. Two months later
25 Defendants counsei reminded the United States uf its promise to prepare the judgment. A year later T
26 with no judgment or response from the United States, Defendants made a payment by check in the
27 agreed upon amount of $633.23 and another check shortly thereafter. No check irom Defendants has ili
/heater/€,€Ii,»(,2 /aaJCtLa, It! F rv $7/ 8
4 :97cv'7GO #25 Page fl/2——-——·--—·»~~»·»-—·-··-—e·—·-—
-;-2- ...r : 94 - -99,** -,3 I !!_,•*j!.. r ,.

1 ‘ever been deposited or otherwise negotiated by Plaintiff, nor has Plaintiff made contact with Defendants l
2 until the tiling of the debt.
3 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has inexcusably slept on its rights and it would not be unfair .·
4 to allow this matter to proceed. At a minimum, Defendants contend that the United States should be i
5 required to return to the bankruptcy court to move to reopen the case pursuant to ll U.S.C. § 350 in
6 order to determine the proper disposition of this issue.
7 The United States presents evidence of the existence of the notes and the amount due. The I J
8 burden now shitls to Defendants to prove that the amount is not due. United States v. Mastrovira, 830
9 F.Supp 1281 (Sth Cir. 1993); United States v. Irby, 517 F.2d 1042, 1043 (5th Cir. 1975). Defendants
10 fail to meet their burden. 5
11 Defendants present no controvetting affidavits or other evidence to support their claims. Fed.
I2 R. Civ. P. 56(e). For instance, they present no evidence in the form of a settlement agreement; they
13 concede that no judgement was entered. There is no proof that they made any payments on their loans
14 or that the bankruptcy court made sufficient findings under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and discharged the
15 loans. As such, Defendants arguments are nothing more than conclusory and unsupported allegations .j
16 are which me insufficient to survive summary judgment. Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F ,2d 266, 268 ,
17 (9th Cir. 1982). Finally, laches or neglect of duty on the part of officers of the government is no
18 defense to a suit against the United States. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720·735 (1824); I
19 Chesapeake & Delaware Canal C0. v. UnitedStates, 250 U.S. 123, 39 S.Ct. 407 (1919). Based on the t
20 record presented, the Court concludes that the United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
21 THEREFORE, 1TIS ORDERED that Plaintiff United States’ Amended Motion for Summary
22 Judgment is GRANTED and judgment is hereby entered in favor ofthe United States and against Marc
23 R. Mondragon and Kim Z. Mondtagon in the amount of $199,805.00 in principal and $4,595.00 in
24 interest through June 19, 1998 with additional interest to the date of judgment and interest thereaher I
25 at the legal rate and costs ofthis litigation.
26 DATED this 2nd day of October, 1998. I A ___ 5
27 /‘-- /2/ g
WM. FREMMING NIELSEN
28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 2 U { L
- . . .. . . .--c.-...-..,-.“, .... W.g.T9.§.;.;.§.;6.6“#;.§§W_w%é ».~..m.-,-...-2
- .‘ |.* -. H *.* ' . ,|•-. ll.}! .... ...... . . ..·.•..• .. . - 1.*.- ............ EXhibilA ·ee—.

Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR

Document 119

Filed 07/13/2006 Exhibit A of 2 Page 1

Case 2:04-cv-00544-PGR

Document 119

Filed 07/13/2006

Page 2 of 2 A Exhibit