You should have been given 30 days to respond to the MSJ. If your response had requested a hearing the judge would have another 10 days to conduct one.
You may actually have grounds to have the judgment set aside under Rule 60 (1) or (8).
However, note that when filing your motion you "must allege a meritorious claim or defense."
Based on Rule 56(C) your "meritorious claim or defense" should include a designation of "all parts of pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, matters of judicial notice, and any other matters on which it relies for purposes of the motion. A party opposing the motion shall also designate to the court each material issue of fact which that party asserts precludes entry of summary judgment and the evidence relevant thereto."
That means you don't just say that you didn't get your 30 days to respond, you have to convince the judge that you had something that could have challenged the MSJ had you been given the opportunity to present it.
Thanks, Jack. Appreciate this! I feel confident I understand all the points you made here.
Saying just that isn't going to be enough.
What EVIDENCE do you have of their "obligations"?
What EVIDENCE do you have that provided those services under "different circumstances" that they were obligated to.
I'm not going to belabor the EVIDENCE emphasis. Just pointing out that your "sayso" isn't enough.
This one I thought I could just cite the statutes and Plaintiff's obligations, and point to their own exhibit as not meeting the lawful requirements.
And, frankly, I'm not sure that you are up to getting it right.
If you aren't willing to get a lawyer to handle this for you, you might be better off consulting a bankruptcy lawyer. Bankruptcy, if appropriate, is a lot cheaper than continuing litigation of the debt.
This could be true, but I don't have the money to hire an attorney. I have to do the best I can do. These are student loans that apparently cannot be discharged.
Here are the regulations, at least what I found:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/part-674
674.42(b) - Exit Counseling
(1)An institution must ensure that exit counseling is conducted with each borrower either in person, by audiovisual presentation, or by interactive electronic means. The institution must ensure that exit counseling is conducted shortly before the borrower ceases at least half-time study at the institution...[or] within 30 days after learning that the borrower has withdrawn from the institution or failed to complete exit counseling as required.
Plaintiff's attorneys submitted electronic documents with their motion that showed the school provided exit counseling, but these were dated in the middle of my studies when I was enrolled at another institution for a semester and did not even comply with the statute anyway! (it was neither shortly before I dropped below half-time enrollment, nor within 30 days of them learning that I was not enrolled at the school). They did the exit counseling when I was
re-admitted to my university a semester later, and simply advised me that my loans had fallen back into normal deferment and/or grace period.
The letter of the law says: "must ensure that exit counseling is conducted shortly before the borrower ceases at least half-time study at the institution (...or within 30 days of the institution learning that the student is no longer enrolled)--
but I was enrolled again as a full-time student, continued my studies, incurred more debt, changed the conditions of 674.42(b)(i)(iii), and (iv), and finally dropped below half-time enrollment for good. No exit counseling.
Those are the points I would litigate.
I feel the nature of the Plaintiff's negligence is material because after I left uni, I have neither had any job, nor wages, nor house, nor car, nor assets that could be collected for payment. I found out I would have qualified for income based repayment (zero), if not been able to apply for hardship cancellation, partial or otherwise. If Plaintiff had simply fulfilled their obligations under the contract, it's likely or certain the loans would have never entered default, and I would like to defend myself and have my day in court.