Roach v. Navient Solutions, Inc., 165 F. Supp. 3d 343

Background

Plaintiff Sierra Roach, proceeding pro se, sued Navient Solutions, Inc. (formerly Sallie Mae, Inc.) alleging violations of the TCPA and FCRA based on automated calls and credit-reporting of five private student loans.
The five promissory notes at issue contain broad arbitration clauses that apply to “any Claim…that arises from or relates in any way to [the] Note,” and extend arbitration rights to Sallie Mae, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors, and assigns.
Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to stay the action, supporting its motion with the loan applications, promissory notes, Truth in Lending disclosures, and a corporate name-change certificate showing SMI became NSI.
Roach opposed, arguing (1) NSI is a distinct entity without authority to enforce the arbitration provisions and (2) she does not recall signing or receiving the loans (implying forgery/identity theft). She submitted limited sworn statements that did not deny signing the notes or receiving funds.
The court found three Whiteside elements satisfied (dispute, interstate commerce, refusal to arbitrate) and concluded the arbitration clauses cover TCPA and FCRA claims; it rejected Roach’s NSI-authority argument (name change and broad assignment language) and found no admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute over formation.
The court denied Roach’s motion for leave to file a surreply, granted judicial notice of the corporate amendment, and granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and stay the litigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a valid written arbitration agreement covering the claims exists	Roach contends she never signed/received the loans (forgery/identity theft) so no agreement	Notes and loan applications bearing her name/e-signature, disclosures, and affidavit evidence show formation and incorporation of arbitration terms	Court: No genuine factual dispute; arbitration agreements are valid and cover the claims
Whether NSI can enforce the arbitration clauses	Roach argues NSI (as distinct entity) lacks authority to invoke the notes	NSI was formerly Sallie Mae, Inc.; notes expressly grant arbitration rights to SMI/NSI and their successors, assigns, affiliates	Court: NSI may enforce the arbitration provisions (name change and broadened beneficiary language control)
Whether TCPA and FCRA claims are arbitrable	Roach does not dispute scope but implies statutory claims should proceed	Defendant: Arbitration clauses are broad and encompass statutory claims related to the notes	Court: Statutory TCPA and FCRA claims fall within the scope and are arbitrable under FAA policy favoring arbitration
Whether surreply should be permitted	Roach sought to raise novel incorporation-by-reference argument late	Navient opposed and Court noted local rules disfavor surreplies and the new argument was untimely and largely copied from other briefs	Court: Denied leave to file surreply; rejected the late novel argument as untimely and unpersuasive

Key Cases Cited

Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (federal policy strongly favors arbitration)
United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (arbitration clause should be interpreted broadly; courts must presume arbitrability when ambiguous)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (nonmoving party must show more than a scintilla of evidence to defeat summary judgment)
Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (party resisting arbitration bears burden to show claims are unsuitable for arbitration)
Hill v. PeopleSoft USA, Inc., 412 F.3d 540 (state contract law governs validity of arbitration agreement)
Whiteside v. Teltech Corp., 940 F.2d 99 (4th Cir.) (elements to compel arbitration under FAA)