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.

Abdelmalik v. United States Small Business Administration

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

March 26, 2018

MAGED ABDELMALIK and HANAN AWADALLA, Plaintiffs
v.
UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Defendant

          MEMORANDUM

          KANE JUDGE

         In this action, Plaintiffs Maged Abdelmalik and Hanan Awadalla (“Plaintiffs”), seek judicial review of an administrative decision by the United States Small Business Administration (“Defendant”), permitting wage garnishment under 28 U.S.C. § 2415 et seq. Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment (Doc. Nos. 9, 12), which are ripe for disposition. For the following reasons, the Court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         The following facts germane to the present motion are undisputed.[1] On April 15, 2005, Defendant agreed to guarantee 75% of a loan issued to Plaintiffs through PNC Bank in the amount of $303, 800.00 for their business AAA Convenience, Inc., d/b/a Uni-Mart. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 1; 13 ¶ 1; 8-1 at 2.) The loan was secured, in part, by unconditional personal guarantees from Plaintiffs. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 2; 8-1 at 40.) The loan note stated that a default would occur if the monthly payment was not paid when due. (Doc. No. 10 ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs defaulted on the loan in 2009. To date, $207, 274.21 is due and owing on the loan. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 6; 8-1 at 24.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that they defaulted on the loan. (Doc. No. 10 ¶ 6.)

         Defendant contacted Plaintiffs regarding repayment of the loan on or about September 20, 2015.[2] (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 8; 8-2 at 70.) Consequently, Defendant referred the debt to the United States Treasury Department (the “Treasury Department”), for collection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2415. (Doc. No. No. 10 ¶ 8; 8-1 at 27). On or about January 14, 2016, the Treasury Department notified Plaintiffs of their intent to initiate administrative wage garnishment proceedings. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 11; 8-1 at 27.) The notice indicated a delinquent debt due in the amount of $207, 274.24 and advised Plaintiffs that a wage garnishment order would be delivered to Plaintiffs' employer to deduct 15% of Plaintiffs' disposable income from each pay period until the debt was satisfied. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 10; 8-1 at 10.) Plaintiffs submitted a timely objection to the wage garnishment action on the basis that collection was barred by the statute of limitations set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 2415. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 12; 8-1 at 24.)

         The matter was assigned to Administrative Wage Garnishment Hearing Officer Christina Goebelsmann (“the Hearing Officer”), and a written records hearing followed. On November 30, 2016, the Hearing Officer found that the statute of limitations was inapplicable to the administrative wage garnishment proceedings. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 17; 8-1 at 6.) Specifically, the Hearing Officer determined that 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a) applies only to civil actions for money damages and not administrative wage garnishment proceedings. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 18; 8-1 at 5.) As a result, the Hearing Officer upheld the wage garnishment order against Plaintiffs' future earnings. (Doc. Nos. 10 ¶ 20; 8-1 at 6.)

         Plaintiffs seek judicial review of the Hearing Officer's decision permitting wage garnishment under 28 U.S.C. § 2415 et seq., claiming that the administrative wage garnishment is barred by the statute of limitations set forth under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a). (Doc. No. 1.)

         B. Procedural Background

         On January 30, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendant in this Court seeking judicial review of an administrative decision by Defendant permitting wage garnishment under 28 U.S.C. § 2415. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) On May 5, 2017, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) On June 30, 2017, Defendant submitted a seventy-page Administrative Record and Index. (Doc. No. 8.) On July 14, 2017, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. Nos. 9, 12), together with supporting briefs and statements of material facts in support of the motions, and corresponding exhibits (Doc. Nos. 10-11, 13). On July 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgement. (Doc. No. 13.) On August 14, 2017, Defendant filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 14.) Defendant filed a reply brief to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on August 28, 2017. (Doc. No. 15.) Having been fully briefed, the cross-motions for summary judgment are accordingly ripe for disposition.

         II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

         A. Summary Judgment Standard

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-51 (1986). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, who is “entitled to every reasonable inference that can be drawn from the record.” Merkle v. Upper Dublin Sch. Dist., 211 F.3d 782, 788 (3d Cir. 2000). However, the nonmoving party may not simply sit back and rest on the allegations in the complaint, but must “go beyond the pleadings and by her own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (internal quotations omitted). Summary judgment should be granted where a party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden at trial.” Id. at 322. The appropriate standard for summary judgment does not change due to cross-motions being presented. United States v. Hall, 730 F.Supp. 646, 648 (M.D. Pa. 1990).

         B. Arbitrary and ...


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.