2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 3-11-2009 

# U S A v . T ue rk P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-2962

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" U SA v . T ue rk " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1757. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1757Honora ble J oseph E. Irena s, Senior United States District J udg e for the District of Ne w * J erse y , sitti ngby

desig nation. NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ No. 07-2962

_________ UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

v. RO B ERT P. T UE RK

Appellant

___________________ Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Pe nn sylva

nia No. 05-c v-06088 (Mag istrate Judge: The Honora ble Timothy

R. Rice)

___________________ Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Fe bruar y 2, 2009 Be fore : McKEE, STAPL ETON, Circuit Judges, and I RENAS, Senior District Judge
.

* (F iled: March 11, 2009)
OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T2

McKe e, Circuit J udg e, Robert Tuer

k appea ls the district court’s orde r grantingsummary judgme nt to the United States on its sui t to recove r amounts owed on de faulted student loans e x tended to Ture k. For the
re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e wi ll a ff

ir m. I
. Inasmuch a s we a

re writing pr imarily

for the pa

rties who ar e fa

miliar with this case, we
ne e d n ot r e c ite the fa c tua l or pr oc e dura l hi sto ry . O ur

re vie w o f t

he g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i s plenar y . Kaucher v. County of Buc ks , 4 55 F .3 d 4 18 , 4 22 (3 d Ci r. 20 06 ). Summary jud g me nt i s appropr iate “if

the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56 (c) . To raise a “g enuine” issue of fa ct, the re cord must contain e vidence “such that a re asonable jury could re turn a ve rdict for

the nonmoving pa

rty .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Tuerk a lso alleg es that the g overnme nt’s claim is barr ed by various def

enses, including lache s, lack of due diligenc e, and se vera l constituti onal def enses. The 1991 Amendment to the Hi g he r E du c atio n A c t st ate s in re le va nt p art that “ no lim itatio n s ha ll t e rm inate the pe ri od wi thi n which suit may

be filed, a

judgme nt may

be enf orce d or an of

fset, g arnishment or othe r ac tion ini tiate d o r t ake n b y

. . . th e Attor

ne y Ge ne ra l . . . f

or the repa y me nt o f t he amou nt d ue fr om a borrowe r on a loa

n made unde r this subchapter .. 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) (2)( D) (2009) . In enac ting that amendment, Congress intende d to allow rec overy on a broa d rang e of student loan de bts by3

eliminating a ll lim itations defense s such as those ur g ed by Turek. See , United States v. Lawrence 276 F.3d 193, 196 ( 5th Cir. 2001) (§ 1091a eliminates all limit ations defe nses for
c oll e c tio n o f s tud e nt d e bts ); Se eals o , Millard v. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. , 66 F.3d 252, 253 (9th Cir. 1995) (time-ba r abolition fulfilled the express leg islative purpose of e nsuringthat ob lig atio ns to r e pa

y loa ns are e nf or c e d) ; United States v. Gloc kson , 998 F.2d 896, 897 ( 11th Cir. 1993) (notingthat Congr ess intended to re vive all time-bar red a ctions to recove r def aulted student loans). It is also clear

that the amendme nt simi larly eliminates the equitable defe nse of lac hes. Lawrence , 276 F.3d at 196. Furthe rmore, e ven if the a mendment did not otherwise ba r the defe nse of lac hes, Ture k could still notestablish that defe nse ag ainst the United States. See , Un ite d S tates v . S um me rli n , 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1940). See also, United States v. St. John’ s Gene ral Hosp. , 875 F.2d 1064, 1071 ( 3d Cir. 1989) (“It is well established that the United States is not subject to the defe nse of lac hes in enfor cingits rights.”) ; Un ite d S tates v . G e ra , 409 F.2d 117, 120 (3d Cir. 1969) (sa me). Tue rk also argues that the g overnme nt’s claim must fail for wa nt of “due diligenc e.” H oweve r, we can distinguish no differe nce be tween this “due diligenc e”
c la im a nd the me ri tle ss atte mpt

to r e ly on the de fe ns e of

la c he s. Tuerk a lleg es for

the first time on appe al that Cong ress’ e limination of statutes of limit ations for c ollections of student loans is invalid on constituti onal and c ontrac tual g rounds. Howeve r, since he did not make those ar guments in the district court, we w ill not address them now. “[F]ailure to ra ise an issue in district court c onstitut es a w aiver of the a rgument[.] ” Be lit sk us v . P izz ing

ril li , 3 4 3 F. 3 d

6 3 2 , 6 4 5 (3 d

C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Reform Party of Alleghe ny County v. Allegheny

Dept. Of Elec tions , 174 F.3d 305, 316 ( 3d Cir. 1999)).4 I I
. Finally , Tuerk r elies on F ed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in arguing that he should not be faulted f or his atto rn e y ’s ina dv e rt e nt f a ilure to r e sp on d to the g ov e rnme nt’ s mo tio n f or summa ry jud g me nt. Rule 60(b) provide s for re lief fr om judge ments involving “mistake, ina dverte nce, sur prise, or excusable neg lect.” H oweve r, re lief under Rule 60(b) is “e x traordina ry ,” and “ may

only be invoked upon a showingof exceptional circ umstances.’ ” Maybe rry v. M aroney , 529 F.2d 332, 33 6 ( 3d Cir . 1 97 6) . T he e xiste nc e of e xcu sa ble ne g le c t turn s o n a ll r e le va nt c ir c ums tanc e s, including “ the dang er of

prejudice to the debtor, the le ng th of the dela y and its potential impact
on jud ic ia l pr oc e e din g s, the re a so n f or the de lay , in c lud ingwh e the r i t w a s w ith in t he re a so na

ble control of the mova

nt, and whethe r the movant a cted in g ood faith.” Id
. at 395. Her e, the Ma g istrate Judge c orre ctly noted that Tuer

k’s attorne y

had par ticipated in the schedulingconfe renc e whe re the filing date was se t, and he wa s also contac ted by court staf

f and reminded of

the filingdate. Un ite d S tates v . Tu e rk, No. 05-CV-06088, 2007 WL1300231, at *2 (E.D.Pa. Ma

y 1, 2007). Tuer

k was ser ved with the appe llee’s motion for summary judgme nt on Marc h 9, 2007, and his attorney rec eived notice throug h an ele ctronic f iling ser vice. Id
. Fur thermore , the attorne y ’s fa ilure to respond w as not an isolated incide nt. Rather, it was pa rt of a patter n of disreg ard f

or cour t orders during the course of the proc eeding s. Id . Thus, it is clear that Turek c an not establish excusable ne g lect. In fac t, his attempt to argue excusable ne g lect on th i s r e c o r d

b o r d e r s o nf

r i v o l i ty. III
. For all of the a

bove re asons, we w ill affirm the orde r of the district c ourt g ranting summary judgme nt to the plaintiff.