Chinnock v. Navient Corporation et al, No. 1:2018cv01009 - Document 34 (N.D. Ohio 2018)
Court Description: Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/17/18. The Court grants plaintiff's motion for leave to amend her complaint. Any amendment to the complaint must be filed within 14 days of this Order. The Court will hold the Navient defendants' motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the filing of an amended complaint. The Court denies plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's denial of the earlier motion to remand, her motion for sanctions, her motion to strike, and her motion to appear by telephone. The Court will hold plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in abeyance pending further discovery. (Related Docs. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 30 , and 32 ) (D,MA)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Chinnock v. Navient Corporation et al Doc. 34 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ----------------------------------------------------------------------JULIE ANNE CHINNOCK, Plaintiff, vs. NAVIENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 1:18-cv-1009 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 32] ----------------------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Plaintiff Julie Chinnock asks the Court to reconsider its refusal to remand this case to state court, arguing (once again) that the case was improperly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.1 She protests that the Court did not give her sufficient time to file a reply brief and erred in declining to remand the case.2 The Court “s not persuaded by Pla“nt“ff Ch“nnock’s add“t“onal arguments in her reply brief and motion to reconsider and DENIES her motion to reconsider for the reasons stated in its previous Order. One point requires further clarification. Plaintiff Chinnock correctly points out that claims against multiple defendants cannot be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement. 3 But even if Plaintiff Chinnock argues that each of the loans at issue are from different lenders, she nonetheless seeks a remedy against Defendants Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, LLC, with regard to all of the alleged loans. As a result, her claims against those defendants may be aggregated.4 And the Court may take supplemental jurisdiction over her claims against the remaining 1 Doc. 25. 2 Id. 3 Doc. 23 at 6–7. 4 See Naji v. Lincoln, 665 F. App’x 397, 401 (6th C“r. 2016) ( A s“ngle pla“nt“ff may aggregate h“s separate cla“ms aga“nst a s“ngle defendant . . . . ). Dockets.Justia.com Case No. 1:18-cv-1009 Gwin, J. defendants.5 The parties have also filed a number of other motions. First, Plaintiff Chinnock has filed two motions for summary judgment.6 In light of the early stage of this litigation, the Court will hold those motions in abeyance until discovery has proceeded further. Second, Plaintiff Chinnock has informed the Court that she believes that counsel for the Navient Defendants have engaged in unauthorized practice of law.7 The Court sees no evidence of unethical behavior on the part of the Nav“ent Defendants’ counsel and DENIES what it construes as a request for sanctions. Third, Plaintiff Chinnock filed a notice with the Court stating that she has identified some or all of the John Doe defendants in her complaint.8 The Court construes this as a motion to amend the complaint and GRANTS that motion. Chinnock should file any amended complaint naming additional defendants within fourteen days of this Order. In light of the potential for amendment, the Court will hold the Navient Defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance. Fourth, Plaintiff Chinnock moves to strike some portions of the Nav“ent Defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing that they are derogatory or incorrect. 9 The Court DENIES that motion. The statements Chinnock challenges essentially reflect differing views of the facts of the case or confusion about Pla“nt“ff’s arguments. Those are not reasons to strike portions of the motion to dismiss. F“fth, the Court re”ects Pla“nt“ff Ch“nnock’s cla“m that the Electron“c F“l“ng System’s (ECF) requirements elevate substance over form, may chill legal practice or the rule of law, or pose any threat to the administration of justice. 10 Resources to assist counsel in utilizing the system are 5 See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Doc. 20; Doc. 32. 7 Doc. 22 at 4–6; Doc. 24. 8 Doc. 26. 9 Doc. 22 at 1–4. 10 Doc. 30 at 1. 6 -2- Case No. 1:18-cv-1009 Gwin, J. plentiful and attorneys throughout the country have been able to utilize it without any discernable impact on either the rule of law or their ability to effectively represent the“r cl“ents. Pla“nt“ff’s counsel’s preference for paper f“l“ng “s not grounds for chang“ng the Court’s rule nor “s “t ev“dence of any fundamental defect in the ECF. Finally, Plaintiff Chinnock requests that she and her counsel be allowed to attend the July 25, 2018, case management conference by telephone.11 The Court DENIES that motion. For those reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Ch“nnock’s motion for leave to amend her complaint. Any amendment to the complaint must be filed within fourteen days of this Order. The Court will hold the Nav“ent Defendants’ motion to dismiss in abeyance pending the filing of an amended complaint. The Court DENIES Pla“nt“ff Ch“nnock’s mot“on to recons“der the Court’s den“al of the earl“er motion to remand, her motion for sanctions, her motion to strike, and her motion to appear by telephone. It w“ll hold Pla“nt“ff Ch“nnock’s mot“on for summary ”udgment “n abeyance pending further discovery. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2018 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 Doc. 21. -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
