Hyland v. Navient Corp.

Decision Date08 July 2019
Docket Number18cv9031(DLC)
PartiesKATHRYN HYLAND, MELISSA GARCIA, ELDON R. GAEDE, JESSICA SAINT-PAUL, REBECCA SPITLER-LAWSON, MICHELLE MEANS, ELIZABETH KAPLAN, JENNIFER GUTH, and MEGAN NOCERINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NAVIENT CORPORATION and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
OPINION AND ORDER

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiffs:

Faith Gay

Maria Ginzburg

Yelena Konanova

Margaret Siller

Selendy & Gay PLLC

1290 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10104

Mark Richard

Phillips, Richard & Rind, P.A.

9360 SW 72 Street, Suite 283

Miami, FL 33173

For the Defendants:

Ashley Simonsen

Covington & Burling LLP

1999 Avenue of the Stars

Los Angeles, CA 90067

Andrew A. Ruffino

Alexander Setzepfandt

Covington & Burling LLP

620 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018

DENISE COTE, District Judge:

Defendants Navient Corporation and Navient Solutions, LLC (collectively "Defendants" or "Navient")1 have moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in this action for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. For the reasons that follow, that motion is granted in part. All claims are dismissed with the exception of the claim brought under New York's General Business Law Section 349.

Background

Navient is a student loan servicer. At the heart of this lawsuit is Navient's advice to public servants about a federal loan forgiveness program that applies to certain federally-backed student loans.

Two Loan Programs: Guaranteed and Direct Loans

There are two categories of federally-backed student loans at issue here. The first is the Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFEL"), established by the Higher Education Act ("HEA") in 1964. 20 U.S.C. § 1071 et seq. Under that program, the federal government guarantees student loans that are fundedby private lenders ("Guaranteed Loans"). The second category is loans originated by the federal government through the William D. Ford Direct Loan Program ("Direct Loans"), which was established in 1994. 20 U.S.C. § 1087a et seq. Both Guaranteed Loans and Direct Loans are serviced by third parties through servicing contracts with the United States Department of Education (the "Department"). When a student borrower takes out a Guaranteed or a Direct Loan, he or she must enter into a Master Promissory Note ("MPN") contract with either the private lender (in the case of Guaranteed loans) or the Department (for a Direct Loan). Congress requires the MPNs for both Guaranteed and Direct Loans to be standardized.

The MPN for Guaranteed Loans specifies that the borrower will have the opportunity to choose from one of four repayment plans, including the Standard Repayment Plan and the Income-Sensitive Repayment Plan. The Standard Repayment Plan is ten years. The Income-Sensitive Repayment Plan is an income-driven repayment plan which bases repayment obligations on the borrower's income and family size. The Direct Loan MPN offers a wider variety of repayment plans than the Guaranteed Loan MPN, including four income-driven repayment plans.

Borrowers who are having difficulty making their loan payments may enter into deferment or forbearance if they meet certain criteria. These options essentially postpone theborrower's payment of a loan. Loans continue to accrue interest during the period of postponement. Borrowers will not make any payments during deferment or forbearance.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness

In 2007, as part of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, Congress created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Plan ("PSLF"). Through PSLF, teachers and other public servants may have their loan balances forgiven after making 120 on-time payments under a qualifying repayment plan -- including certain income-driven plans -- while working for a qualifying employer. Only Direct Loans qualify for PSLF. The Direct Loan MPN contains a section titled "Public Service Loan Forgiveness" that informs the borrower of the availability of this program.2 A borrower who has Guaranteed Loans must consolidate them into Direct Loans in order to qualify for PSLF. If a borrower consolidates Guaranteed Loans into Direct Loans, payments previously made on the Guaranteed Loans will not count toward the required 120 qualifying payments. Moreover, periods of deferment or forbearance do not count toward the 120 qualifying payments.

PSLF requires a borrower to verify that he or she is employed full time by a qualified public service employer by completing an Employment Certification Form ("ECF"). ECFs may be submitted at any time during repayment. When a borrower submits an ECF, the Department will verify that the borrower is on track for PSLF. The ECF must be submitted to the Department's designated servicer for PSLF loans, FedLoan Servicing ("FedLoan"), rather than the borrower's existing servicer. If the borrower's employment qualifies for PSLF, the borrower's Direct Loans will be transferred to FedLoan for servicing. Once a borrower makes 120 on-time qualifying payments, he or she must complete a PSLF Application for Forgiveness, which is also submitted to FedLoan.

Navient's Government Contracts

Federal law provides that the Department "may enter into contracts for . . . the servicing and collection of [Direct Loans]" 20 U.S.C. § 1087f(b)(2). A private lender who originates a Guaranteed Loan may similarly contract with another entity to perform its functions under the Guaranteed Loan program. 34 C.F.R. § 682.203(a). Such a delegation does not relieve the private lender of its duty to comply with the statutory FFEL requirements and the private lender must monitor the activities of the contracting entity for compliance with those requirements. Id.; 20 U.S.C. § 1086(a).

In 2009, Navient's predecessor entered into a Servicing Contract with the Department, pursuant to which Navient is delegated the duties of the lender for Guaranteed Loans and the duties of the Department for Direct Loans. This Servicing Contract states that its "Objective" is to "[a]cquire efficient and effective commercial contract services to manage all types of Title IV student aid obligations, including, but not limited to, servicing and consolidation of outstanding debt." The Servicing Contract also states:

It is the intent of the Department to procure a performance-based contract(s) that promotes competition and provides best of business services. To achieve this goal, the Department expects each servicer to provide commercially available services that will yield high performing portfolios and high levels of customer satisfaction.

Navient entered into an additional Servicing Contract with the Department in 2014. In a press statement surrounding the release of this Servicing Contract, the Department stated that the new Servicing Contract would

strengthen incentives for [federal student loan servicers] to provide excellent customer service and help borrowers stay up-to-date on their payments. This action will help ensure that borrowers receive the highest quality support as they repay their federal student loans and help the Department better monitor the performance of loan servicers to help them continue to improve.

Both the Department and Navient advertise to borrowers that Navient can assist borrowers with navigating the student loanrepayment process. For example, the Department's website encourages borrowers to contact their loan servicers for information about their repayment plans, including for information about income-driven repayment and PSLF. It specifically advises borrowers that loan servicers

are responsible for collecting payments on a loan, advising borrowers on resources and benefits to better manage their federal student loan obligations, responding to customer service inquiries, and performing other administrative tasks associated with maintaining a loan on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education.

In the Direct Loan MPN, the Department advises borrowers that it "contract[s] with servicers to process Direct Loan payments, deferment and forbearance requests, and other transactions, and to answer questions about Direct Loans."

On its website, Navient encourages borrowers to "[c]ontact us to discuss your student loan obligations. We can answer any questions you have about paying back your loans and the types of repayment plans available to you." Navient states that it "help[s] students navigate the lifecycle of their loan with: Expert guidance while in school and beyond," "Counseling as needed to stay on track with payments," and "Tools and information to explore repayment plan options that best meet their needs." Navient's advertised services include "financial literacy tools and in-depth customer service" to "help our customers successfully pay their education loans and build theircredit." Navient represents that it is "committed to helping our student loan customers achieve successful loan repayment, and we are here to help you. If you are having trouble managing your student loans, contact us."

Navient earns revenue through interest on Guaranteed Loans and through servicing fees that come out of loan payments made by borrowers. When a borrower consolidates a Guaranteed Loan into a Direct Loan Navient, as the owner of the Guaranteed Loan, loses revenue in the form of interest income on the Guaranteed Loan. Further, when a borrower pursues the PSLF program, the borrower's loans are transferred to FedLoan for servicing. In that event, Navient loses income from the fees it earns by servicing Direct Loans.

The Servicing Contracts between Navient and the Department set a fixed cap on the total revenue a servicer can earn from the Department. Plaintiffs allege that this creates an incentive for Navient to increase profits by reducing costs. They further allege that the cost of compensating employees for the time and skills necessary to provide a borrower with accurate information about PSLF is higher than the amount of money Navient stands to lose from a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Edelman v. U.S. Gov't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 4 décembre 2020
    ...the contract terms clearly evidence an intent to permit enforcement by the third party in question." Hyland v. Navient Corp., No. 18-CV-09031, 2019 WL 2918238, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2019) (quoting Hillside, 747 F.3d at 49 (citation omitted)). District courts in this Circuit have held that......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT