NEWELL v. LendVia LLC
2:25-cv-01018
| E.D. Pa. | Aug 15, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Jourey Newell filed a putative class action alleging that LendVia LLC violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
- LendVia sought to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), asserting Newell agreed to arbitrate when submitting an online loan application.
- The original motion to compel arbitration was denied without prejudice after the parties relied on facts outside the complaint; the court ordered discovery limited to the issue of arbitrability.
- After targeted discovery, LendVia renewed its motion, but factual disputes remain about whether Newell agreed to the operative Terms of Use and what those terms were.
- The court found genuine issues of material fact about: (1) whether Newell personally consented to the terms/arbitration clause and (2) which terms of use were in effect at the relevant time.
- Consequently, the court held the motion in abeyance and will proceed to a trial on the arbitrability issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Newell the person who agreed to arbitrate? | He denies visiting the site; claims personal info was misused; evidence could support either side. | Newell agreed via online form; produced screen recording with his details and consent box. | Factual dispute exists; must be resolved at trial. |
| Which Terms of Use were operative on Dec 8, 2024? | Points to Wayback Machine version showing different terms with no mention of LendVia. | Offers declaration and purported operative terms referencing LendVia and arbitration. | Factual dispute exists; must be resolved at trial. |
| Did LendVia comply with the E-SIGN Act? | Argues failure to provide required written info under E-SIGN Act invalidates arbitration. | Contends Newell failed to show what was missing or that noncompliance occurred. | Newell did not establish legal violation; argument rejected for lack of specifics. |
| Is enforcement barred by Pennsylvania’s Fictitious Names Act? | Claims LendVia can’t enforce as Utel USA (site owner) never registered the site name. | No evidence LendVia is a successor or assignee of Utel USA; statute does not apply to LendVia. | Argument rejected; no evidence LendVia qualifies as successor or assignee under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (U.S. 1995) (state contract law governs formation of arbitration agreements)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (U.S. 2009) (arbitration issues governed by state contract law)
- Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C., 716 F.3d 764 (3d Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard applies to motions to compel arbitration when facts are disputed)
- MZM Construction Co., Inc. v. New Jersey Building Laborers Statewide Benefit Funds, 974 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2020) (court must proceed to trial if genuine issue of material fact exists regarding arbitration agreement formation)