Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180326_0000842.MPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:12:23+00:00

Document:
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.
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.
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).

References: § 2415
 § 2415
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.