Tingling v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp., 990 F.3d 304

Debtor Janet Tingling sought discharge of federal and privately held student loans under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), alleging undue hardship; ECMC intervened as assignee of eight loans.
At a July 31, 2018 pretrial conference parties prepared and approved a hand‑marked joint pretrial memorandum; the Bankruptcy Court adopted a clean version of that joint memorandum as its Pretrial Order.
Tingling later (pro se) submitted unilateral revisions and argued she had been coerced into stipulating material facts (standing, medical issues, loan amounts); the Bankruptcy Court declined to adopt her revisions.
On the merits the Bankruptcy Court found Tingling failed to satisfy any prong of the Brunner test: income/expenses permitted repayment, no persisting adverse circumstances (age 52, good health, two graduate degrees, no dependents), and lack of good‑faith repayment efforts (did not consolidate or use income‑based plans; received tax refunds not applied to loans).
The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s adoption of the joint pretrial memorandum and its nondischargeability ruling; the Second Circuit likewise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion by adopting the July 31, 2018 joint pretrial memorandum and refusing Tingling’s later unilateral revisions	Tingling says she was coerced into stipulating material facts and was deprived of due process when the court adopted the joint memorandum and rejected her revisions	Court and defendants say parties jointly agreed to the hand‑marked memorandum at the pretrial conference and the court properly exercised discretion to adopt it and keep case management orderly	No abuse of discretion; adoption proper and unilateral revisions were rightly precluded
Whether Tingling proved "undue hardship" to discharge student loans under Brunner	Tingling contends repayment would impose undue hardship, citing health and financial difficulties	Defendants argue Brunner’s three prongs are unmet: Tingling’s income and expenses allow minimal living while repaying; adverse circumstances are not likely to persist; she failed to make good‑faith repayment efforts	Brunner not satisfied; loans nondischargeable

Brunner v. N.Y. State Higher Educ. Servs. Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987) (establishes three‑part undue hardship test)
Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 (1991) (preponderance of the evidence standard for § 523(a) exceptions)
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260 (2010) (§ 523(a)(8) renders student loans presumptively nondischargeable absent hardship finding)
Tennessee Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood, 541 U.S. 440 (2004) (Section 523(a)(8) is self‑executing)
Easterling v. Collecto, Inc., 692 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2012) (student loans presumptively nondischargeable)
Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) (pretrial order supersedes prior pleadings)
Madison Consultants v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 710 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1983) (amendment of joint pretrial order disfavored except when interests of justice require)
Laguna v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 439 F.2d 97 (2d Cir. 1971) (balancing justice on the merits against orderly procedure in pretrial amendments)
Clark v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 328 F.2d 591 (2d Cir. 1964) (permission to amend pretrial order reviewed for abuse of discretion)