HICA Education Loan Corporation v. Paczkowski
2:14-cv-01513
| D. Ariz. | Jun 7, 2016Background
- Between 1988 and 1991 Paczkowski signed four promissory notes totaling > $30,000; loans assigned to HICA in 2003.
- Paczkowski stopped making payments circa April 2013; HICA sent repeated demands for payment that went unanswered.
- Paczkowski applied to the Department of Education for discharge of the loans based on alleged permanent and total disability; applications were reviewed and denied repeatedly by the Federal Occupational Health Service (FOH) in 2014–2015.
- Paczkowski did not submit declarations, affidavits, or other admissible evidence to support her disability claim in response to HICA’s summary judgment motion.
- HICA moved for summary judgment on a breach of contract claim; the only admissible evidence on disability were the FOH denial letters attached by HICA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HICA is entitled to summary judgment on breach of contract | HICA: valid promissory notes, defendant stopped paying, damages resulted | Paczkowski: breach excused by permanent and total disability entitling her to loan cancellation | Granted: Court awarded summary judgment to HICA; disability claim unsupported by admissible evidence and FOH denials stand |
| Whether defendant’s disability claim creates a genuine dispute of material fact | HICA: FOH denials are admissible and dispositive; no contrary admissible evidence | Paczkowski: asserted disability via unsworn statements and medical summaries | Held: Defendant’s unsworn/conclusory statements insufficient to create a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standards regarding genuine issues of material fact)
- Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002) (definition of genuine issue for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must do more than show metaphysical doubt)
- Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040 (9th Cir. 1989) (conclusory allegations insufficient to avoid summary judgment)
- Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (court may only consider authenticated, admissible evidence on summary judgment)
- Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 1987) (factual disputes must be such that a trier of fact could reasonably resolve them for either party)
- Snyder v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., 873 F. Supp. 2d 1139 (D. Ariz. 2012) (elements of breach of contract under Arizona law)