183 F.Supp.3d 701
E.D. Pa.2016Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer W. Levy-Tatum, listed as co-signer on a private student loan taken by her daughter, disputes that her (electronic) signature is hers and alleges identity theft after receiving collection notices from Navient Solutions, Inc. (NSI).
- After Sallie Mae’s corporate reorganization, Navient began billing Levy-Tatum; she requested original loan documents and transaction history and received documents showing a typewritten signature and incorrect personal info.
- Navient required Levy-Tatum to complete an ID Theft Affidavit before initiating a fraud investigation; she refused as unduly burdensome and claims Navient never adequately validated the electronic signature or conducted a fair investigation.
- Negative credit impacts followed (credit-limit reductions, account closures), and Navient continued collection communications.
- Procedural posture: this is a motion-to-dismiss ruling on Levy-Tatum’s first amended complaint after earlier dismissal with prejudice of certain statutory claims (E-Sign Act, PAETA, and a prior UTPCPL-related claim). The court considers federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction and rules on Counts I–IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence per se can be predicated on E‑Sign Act / PAETA violations | E‑Sign Act and PAETA’s consumer-protective provisions create duties; negligence claim resurrects previously dismissed statutory claims via negligence per se | Statutes contain no private right/remedy; they do not target a particular protected class or create duties that support negligence per se | Dismissed with prejudice — statutes are not rights-creating and cannot serve as negligence per se basis |
| Whether declaratory relief may be used to declare NSI’s practices predatory and void the loan | Requests declaration that NSI must follow E‑Sign/PAETA/DOE Standards and that the loan is unenforceable as to her | Declaratory relief cannot be used to vindicate alleged violations of statutes lacking private remedies; claim not ripe because plaintiff refused NSI’s identity‑theft procedures | Portion seeking declaration of predatory practices dismissed with prejudice; portion seeking declaration about Levy‑Tatum’s loan obligations dismissed without prejudice (not ripe) |
| Whether FCRA claim adequately pleads unreasonable investigation | Alleged failures in Navient’s investigation and reporting harmed credit; seeks relief under FCRA | Investigation was reasonable as pleaded; pleadings lack facts showing unreasonableness | Dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead unreasonable investigation adequately (plaintiff effectively abandoned response) |
| Whether UTPCPL claim survives given prior dismissal and present pleadings | Alleges unfair/deceptive business practices tied to reporting and identity procedures | UTPCPL claim duplicates previously dismissed claim and lacks new substantive allegations; plaintiff abandoned response to dismissal arguments | Dismissed with prejudice as duplicative/abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading requirement)
- Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009) (two-step Iqbal/Twombly framework for district courts)
- Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) (Rule 12(b)(6) standards and burden on movant)
- Wagner v. Anzon, Inc., 684 A.2d 570 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (negligence per se requires statute to protect particular private interests)
- Congini by Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 470 A.2d 515 (Pa. 1983) (factors to assess whether statute protects a particular interest for negligence per se)
- Merrell Dow Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986) (courts should not create private remedies where Congress omitted them)
- Step‑Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 912 F.2d 643 (3d Cir. 1990) (ripeness factors for declaratory relief)