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.

GORKA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

October 8, 2004.

ANTHONY M. GORKA, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: CHARLES NORGLE, District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Anthony Gorka ("Gorka") seeks judicial review of an administrative decision, made by Defendant United States Department of Education ("Education"), that Gorka's student loan debts are valid. Before the court is Education's Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, Education's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND*fn1

  A. Facts

  On February 9, 1988, Gorka signed an application/promissory note for a student loan. Ex. List to Def.'s Local Rule 56.1 Stmt. of Material Facts, A2. This loan was approved in the amount of $2625. On March 4, 1988, Gorka applied for another student loan. Id. at A4. This loan was approved in the amount of $1602. These loans were disbursed by the Bank of Horton ("Horton"), and guaranteed by the Nebraska Higher Education Assistance Foundation ("NHEAF"). Gorka used these loans to attend the International Institute of Transportation Resource ("IITR"), a truck driving school. Id. at A2, A4. Gorka graduated from IITR on April 29, 1988.

  Later in 1988, Gorka applied for a deferment in repayment; this request was denied, as Gorka was no longer attending IITR. Id. at A6. On January 12, 1989, Horton placed a telephone call to Gorka. During that call, Gorka indicated to Horton that he would submit a one hundred dollar payment. Gorka denies that this telephone call occurred, or that he agreed to send payment on the loan, but his denial is improper. Gorka's Local Rule 56.1(b)(3) Response which contains this denial reads as follows:
While Defendant suggests that there is an entry in Defendant's student payment history data sheet indicating a telephone call to the Plaintiff, no documentation or evidence is presented by Defendant to support with whom the Lender/Holder allegedly spoke, nor any verification that the Lender/Holder spoke with the Plaintiff, Anthony M. Gorka.
Local Rule 56.1(b)(3)(A) requires "a response to each numbered paragraph in the moving party's statement, including, in the case of any disagreement, specific references to the affidavits, parts of the record, and other supporting material relied on." N.D. Ill. Local R. 56.1(b)(3)(A). This rule requires that "the nonmovant must cite specific evidentiary materials justifying the denial." Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 584 (N.D. Ill. 2000). If the nonmovant fails to follow this rule, "movant's factual allegations are deemed admitted." Id. Here, Gorka has failed to cite any "evidentiary material" that would justify this denial. Movant's allegation that the holder of this loan called Gorka, and that Gorka agreed to submit a one hundred dollar payment, is therefore deemed admitted.

  Gorka submitted a payment of one hundred dollars, but made no further payments on his loans. The loans were then placed in default, and NHEAF assigned the loans to Education. Education then began wage garnishment proceedings against Gorka, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1095A.*fn2 Education mailed Gorka a notice of its intent to pursue wage garnishment, as well as a form Gorka could fill out to request a hearing on the matter.*fn3 Gorka never returned this form. Gorka sent a letter to Education alleging, however, that the signatures on his loan paperwork were forged. In response, Education sent Gorka an unauthorized signature discharge application (a form used to dispute the validity of a signature on student loan paperwork). Gorka filled out and returned this application, but Education denied it, finding that there was sufficient evidence that the signatures were legitimate. Education then informed Gorka that he could, at his expense, obtain the services of a handwriting expert if he wished to further contest the matter.*fn4

  On May 5, 2001, Education sent a wage withholding order to Gorka's employer. Gorka then requested a hearing on the validity of the loans. In response, Education conducted a written records hearing in order to determine whether Gorka's debts were legitimate. (Gorka never provided expert handwriting analysis for Education's consideration.) After examining its agency records and computer database, Education determined that the loans were indeed legitimate and enforceable. Education based its decision on signed loan applications, signed promissory notes, a verification letter from IITR, and Gorka's account history. Gorka submitted no evidence to this written records hearing.*fn5

  B. Procedural History

  Education's administrative garnishment hearing decision affirming the validity of Gorka's debt was issued on July 9, 2001. On August 1, 2002, Gorka filed suit in the United States District Court, asking the court to set aside Education's administrative decision. On June 23, 2003, Education moved for summary judgment. The court ultimately denied that motion as moot, however, dismissing Gorka's Complaint on jurisdictional grounds. See Minute Order of Oct. 20, 2003 (Gorka's Complaint failed to properly plead the subject matter jurisdiction of the court). On November 17, 2003, Gorka filed an Amended Complaint, again asking the court to set aside Education's decision. Education has again moved for summary judgment, and that motion is fully briefed and before the court.

  C. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

  Gorka's Amended Complaint asserts that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. See Amended Complaint of Nov. 17, 2003, ¶ 9. Under the APA, a "final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court" is subject to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. § 704. See also Home Builder's Ass'n v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 335 F.3d 607, 614 (7th Cir. 2003). The APA, however, "does not afford an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction permitting federal judicial review of agency action." Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 (1977); see also Wikberg v. Reich, 21 F.3d 188, 189 (7th Cir. 1994) (the APA does not give "federal courts jurisdiction to entertain suits against federal agencies. . . .") The court therefore does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case under the APA. However, Gorka asserts that Education has improperly garnished his wages under 20 U.S.C. § 1095A. See Amended Complaint of Nov. 17, 2003, ¶¶ 6-7. This case therefore arises under federal law, and the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.*fn6

  II. ...


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.