Zemeckis v. Sloan Servicing

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
The Estate Trust known as CAROLYN
ZEMECKIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SLOAN SERVICING,
Defendant.
Civil No. 25-00375 MWJS-RT
ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO
MAKE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION
ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO MAKE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION
For reasons that follow, court AUTHORIZES Plaintiff, the Estate Trust known as
Carolyn Zemeckis, to make one additional submission along the lines described below.
That submission must be filed no later than February 12, 2026. Plaintiff is warned that
no other filings—no motions or other submissions—are authorized at this time.
Defendant should not respond to this additional submission unless the court calls for a
response in a future order.
1. In a prior order, this court granted Defendant Sloan Servicing’s motion to
dismiss the initial complaint in this case. Dkt. No. 34. The court observed that it
appeared highly unlikely that Plaintiff could salvage the claims in the initial complaint
through amendment. Id. at PageID.439–41. But given the Ninth Circuit’s admonition
that leave to amend should be liberally granted, especially to self-represented litigants,
Case 1:25-cv-00375-MWJS-RT Document 48 Filed 01/29/26 Page 1 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

2
see, e.g., Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2003), the court reserved decision
on whether leave should be granted here. Id.
Since that time—and, in part, as a result of evidence Defendant has presented—
Plaintiff has abandoned each of the claims in the initial complaint and now seeks leave
to amend only to bring a new claim. Dkt. No. 47. In a proposed First Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff would now allege a state-law unjust enrichment claim, along with a
request for declaratory relief hinging on that unjust enrichment claim. Id. In its current
form, however, the proposed First Amended Complaint does not adequately allege an
unjust enrichment claim.
Plaintiff alleges that Carolyn Zemeckis (in whose interest Plaintiff—an Estate
Trust—purports to act) owes $67,220 in student loans. Plaintiff further alleges that
between June 2002 and May 2018, “the loan was serviced by Great Lakes Educational
Loan Services, Inc.,” or “Great Lakes.” Id. at PageID.558. And Plaintiff alleges that “[i]n
or around May 2018, servicing of the loan was transferred to Nelnet,” which Plaintiff
believes is the result of “Nelnet [having] acquired Great Lakes, making them part of the
same corporate entity.” Id. Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant “exists under the
umbrella of Nelnet, and acts as its agent and alter ego.” Id.
These allegations themselves establish that Defendant is properly servicing
Plaintiff’s student loan: there is no dispute that Great Lakes was a lawful servicer of the
loan, there is no dispute that Nelnet purchased the loan, and there is no dispute that
Case 1:25-cv-00375-MWJS-RT Document 48 Filed 01/29/26 Page 2 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

3
Defendant “exists under the umbrella of Nelnet, and acts as its agent and alter ego.”
Id.1
Yet Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim would require Plaintiff to prove that
Defendant is not properly servicing Plaintiff’s student loan. That, after all, is the very
premise of Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant is being unjustly enriched by servicing the
loan. But Plaintiff alleges no factual support for the conclusion that Defendant is
unlawfully acting as the loan servicer. Plaintiff’s only allegation is that Defendant has
not yet “prove[n] the complete chain of title from the original lender to itself” to
Plaintiff’s satisfaction. Id.
Defendant has no obligation to prove any such “complete chain of title” to
Plaintiff’s satisfaction, however. And, in any event, it bears repeating that Plaintiff’s
proposed First Amended Complaint does not dispute—and indeed, lays out factual
allegations establishing—that there is in fact a proper chain. That is enough to show
that there is no reasonable prospect of Plaintiff curing the deficiency in the proposed
First Amended Complaint through any further revision of it. To prove an unjust
enrichment claim on the theory that Defendant is, essentially, stealing student loan
payments, Plaintiff must provide factual detail to plausibly establish that is so. Plaintiff
may not sue first and then demand that Defendant prove it should never have been
1 	Whether any of these facts is really true is not the question here; what matters is
that Plaintiff itself embraces them, and the viability of its claim must be assessed in light
of the facts it has itself accepted as true.
Case 1:25-cv-00375-MWJS-RT Document 48 Filed 01/29/26 Page 3 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

4
sued at all. (Of course, if Plaintiff were to fail to make demanded payments, then it
would be Defendant that likely would file suit, and the burden of proof would fall on
Defendant).
2. In light of the foregoing—and the broader procedural history of this case—the
court is inclined to conclude that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff leave to amend to
file the proposed First Amended Complaint.2 Nonetheless, in order to ensure a full
record, the court authorizes Plaintiff to make one additional letter submission. The
submission shall be no longer than eight pages and must be filed no later than
February 12, 2026.
In the letter, Plaintiff must explain what facts support Plaintiff’s assertion that
Defendant is not the lawful servicer of Carolyn Zemeckis’ student loans. Plaintiff’s
letter need not use formal or legal language, but it must at a minimum include sufficient
detail to demonstrate that Plaintiff could allege the necessary facts if granted leave to
amend. If Plaintiff cannot allege the necessary facts, as described above, Plaintiff may
say so and indicate that Plaintiff wishes to withdraw the proposed First Amended
Complaint and seek to dismiss the action. Plaintiff is warned that beyond this limited
2 	Defendant has made additional arguments for why leave to amend would be
futile—including an argument that the amount in controversy has not been established
for diversity jurisdiction purposes—and those arguments might further support a
conclusion of futility, but the court does not resolve those arguments at this time.
Case 1:25-cv-00375-MWJS-RT Document 48 Filed 01/29/26 Page 4 of 5
PageID.<pageID>

5
authorization, Plaintiff is not authorized to make any additional submissions or make
arguments concerning any other topics at this time.
The court will determine whether leave to amend is warranted here after
receiving the aforementioned letter. The court will also, at that time, resolve
Defendant’s motion for sanctions, Dkt. No. 35.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 29, 2026, at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
Civil No. 25-00375 MWJS-RT; The Estate Trust Known as Carolyn Zemeckis v. Sloan
Servicing; ORDER AUTHORIZING PLAINTIFF TO MAKE ADDITIONAL
SUBMISSION
/s/ Micah W.J. Smith
Micah W.J. Smith
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00375-MWJS-RT Document 48 Filed 01/29/26 Page 5 of 5
PageID.<pageID>