Unpublished Disposition, 935 F.2d 276 (9th Cir. 1988)Annotate this Case
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Robert KRAL, Defendant-Appellant.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 29, 1991.* Decided June 4, 1991.
Before HUG, KOZINSKI and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Robert Kral appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the United States in its action to collect on a defaulted National Direct Student Loan. Kral contends that because he defaulted on his loan in May 1981 and the United States did not file its action until October 1988, the action is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a) which provides for a six-year statute of limitations period in contract actions for money damages brought by the United States. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 3217 (1990).
The statute of limitations period for actions to collect on student loans made under Title IV, Part E of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) (4) (C), is provided for under section 484(a) (4) (C) of the HEA. Section 484(a) (4) (C) of the HEA states that the Attorney General may file suit to collect the amount due on a student loan within "6 years following the date on which the loan is assigned, transferred, or referred to the Secretary...." 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) (4) (C). Thus, the United States may bring an action to collect on a delinquent student loan within six years from the time the loan is assigned to the Department of Education, not from the time the default actually occurred. United States v. Menatos, 925 F.2d 333, 335 (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, section 2415(a) of Title 28 does not affect this interpretation of section 484(a) (4) (C) of the HEA. Id.
Here, the action against Kral was timely because it was filed on October 14, 1988, within six years from October 30, 1984, the date on which the loan was assigned to the Department of Education. See 20 U.S.C. § 1091a(a) (4) (C); Menatos, 925 F.2d at 335. Thus, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the United States.