Il. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Great Lakes’ motion for summary judgment. Great
Lakes is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this lawsuit. The Clerk is

DIRECTED to terminate ECF No. 56 from the Court’s pending motions list.

byukabfi Lib bs,

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case No. 2:18-cv-107 Page 5 of 5


Great Lakes, on the other hand, has pointed the Court to several decisions
finding that a servicer is not a necessary party in this type of case. Reply 2, ECF
No. 60; Stewart v. Bank of New York Mellon, No. 10-CV-791, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 100193, “8 (D. Ariz. Sept. 22, 2010) (collecting cases and stating that the
court could issue a declaratory judgment on the appropriateness of rescission
without the servicer’s presence in the lawsuit); Harris v. Option One Mortg. Corp.,
261 F.R.D. 98, 108 (D.S.C. 2009) (rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that the servicer
could not be dismissed as a necessary party); Walker v. Gateway Fin. Corp., 286
F. Supp. 2d 965, 969 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (characterizing the argument that a servicer
has an interest in the litigation as “an undue stretch” and finding that any concern
that a servicer may improperly report on the loan after rescission is “totally
speculative” and “really not a current case or controversy”); see also Madrigal v.
OneWest Bank, No. C-09-3436, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11179, **6-7 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 9, 2010) (finding a servicer was not a necessary party when it was not
alleged that the servicer failed to properly service the obligation). The Court
agrees with the reasoning of these decisions and finds that Great Lakes is not a
necessary party solely by virtue of being the servicer of the subject loan.
Complete relief can be granted without Great Lakes and there is no substantial
risk of Plaintiff incurring multiple inconsistent obligations because of Great Lakes’

absence.

Case No. 2:18-cv-107 Page 4 of 5


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Richard Cline,
Plaintiff,
V. Case No.: 2:18-cv-107
Judge Michael H. Watson
Lisa Ann Brancato, et al., Magistrate Judge Jolson
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation (“Great Lakes”)
moves for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for summary judgment
on Plaintiff's claim against Great Lakes in the Third Amended Complaint. Mot.,
ECF No. 56. The Court must treat Great Lakes’ motion as one for summary
judgment because it references matters outside the pleadings.’ Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(d). For the following reasons, Great Lakes’ motion is GRANTED.

I STANDARD OF REVIEW

The standard governing summary judgment is set forth in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 56(a), which provides: “The court shall grant summary judgment
if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The

Court must grant summary judgment if the opposing party fails to make a

‘ Plaintiff appropriately responded to the motion as if it were one for summary judgment.


showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); see also Van Gorder v.
Grand Trunk W. R.R., Inc., 509 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2007).

When reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court must draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, who must set forth
specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial, and the
Court must refrain from making credibility determinations or weighing the
evidence. Pittman v. Cuyahoga Cty. Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 640
F.3d 716, 723 (6th Cir. 2011). Summary judgment will not lie if the dispute about
a material fact is genuine, “that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Barrett v. Whirlpool Corp., 556 F.3d 502, 511 (6th Cir.
2009). Thus, the central issue is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Pittman, 640 F.3d at 723 (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52).

U. ANALYSIS
Great Lakes is only mentioned three times in the Third Amended
Complaint. The first two allegations simply state that Great Lakes has its
principal place of business in Wisconsin and is “a service provider of federal
student aid programs funded by the U.S. Department of Education.” Third Am.

Case No. 2:18-cv-107 Page 2 of 5


Compl. | 8-9, ECF No. 29. The only substantive allegation is that “[oJn August
3, 2015, Plaintiff's request to have his name removed from the student loan
account was denied by Great Lakes . . ., at which time he appealed to the U.S.
Department of Education.” /d. 137. This allegation relates only to a declaratory
judgment claim against Great Lakes (and other defendants).

Plaintiff acknowledges that he is not alleging any malfeasance by Great
Lakes. Resp. 2, ECF No. 54. Instead, Plaintiff believes Great Lakes is a
necessary party “in order to completely establish the rights and other legal
relations of the interested parties.” /d. Plaintiff goes further and suggests that he
is, at least in part, suing Great Lakes to allow it to “assert and protect any interest
it may have in the outcome of the declaratory judgment action.” /d.

Notably absent from Plaintiff's argument, however, is citation to any case
law or statute supporting his contention. Furthermore, the only evidence offered
by Plaintiff is a citation to Great Lakes’ discovery responses (which were not
attached to Plaintiff's response) that apparently state that “Great Lakes reports
the status of loan repayment to consumer reporting agencies, which has a direct
impact on Plaintiff's ability to obtain complete relief from the fraudulent loan.”
Resp. 3-4, ECF No. 59. This fact, if it is supported by a document in the record,
would not explain why Great Lakes is a necessary party. Plaintiffs legally and
factually unsupported conclusion that Great Lakes is a necessary party is

insufficient.

Case No. 2:18-cv-107 Page 3 of 5