Mader v. Experian Information Soultions, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-03787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mader v. Experian, Judge Schofield denied reconsideration of an earlier summary judgment ruling after finding no proper basis to revisit it.
Michael Mader and Experian Information Solutions, LLC; the order left the earlier summary judgment ruling in place.
What happened
Michael Mader asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision granting Experian Information Solutions, LLC summary judgment. He argued that the court misunderstood whether his Navient loan qualified for a bankruptcy exception to discharge.
The court said Mader had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or an injustice. It also said some of his arguments were new, mischaracterized the earlier decision, or had already been considered and rejected.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Mader’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Mader v. Experian Information Soultions, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-03787
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 3, 2020
Background
On July 24, 2020, the court granted Experian Information Solutions, LLC’s motion for summary judgment. Michael Mader then moved for reconsideration on August 7, 2020. The earlier ruling concerned whether Mader’s Navient loan was excluded from bankruptcy discharge under a statutory exemption.
Arguments and analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice. It is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain a second hearing on the merits.
Mader argued that Navient was neither a governmental unit nor a nonprofit institution. The court said the earlier ruling had not found otherwise and had relied on a different bankruptcy-discharge exemption.
Mader also challenged the court’s discussion of the Federal Family Education Loan Program and argued that his private loan was not part of that program. The court said he had mischaracterized the earlier ruling, had not previously made that argument, and could not raise it for the first time on reconsideration. The court added that, even if the assertion were true, it did not show whether the loan was made under a program funded in part by a nonprofit or governmental unit.
Mader further argued that Experian had not identified the relevant program specifically enough and that the evidence about the program was disputed. The court said it had already considered and rejected those arguments and had not found that a federally funded program made the loan.
Finally, Mader argued that the promissory note’s statement that the loan was made under a program including Stafford loans and funded in part by nonprofit organizations, including governmental units, could not establish that the loan was nondischargeable. The court said the note was mentioned only in a footnote to address Mader’s understanding of the loan, not as substantive evidence supporting the earlier ruling.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield found that Mader had not identified any qualifying basis for reconsideration. The court therefore denied Mader’s Motion for Reconsideration and directed the clerk to close the open motion at Docket 81.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.