United States District Court, D. Maryland
MEMORANDUM & ORDER RE: DISMISS
J. Garbis United States District Judge
Court has before it the Motion of Navient Solutions, Inc. to
Dismiss, in part, Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [ECF No. 13], and the materials
relating thereto. The Court finds that a hearing is
Joshua Flax (“Flax”) was informed by his parents
following their divorce that they would share the cost of
paying for his undergraduate tuition. Starting in August
2011, Flax attended Franklin & Marshall College in
Pennsylvania. In or about April 2013, Flax learned that
his sister had been contacted about a loan she had not made.
Flax checked his own credit report and was surprised to find
that his father had taken three separate private educational
loans from Navient Solutions, Inc. in Flax's name without
his knowledge or consent by forging his signature on
filed the Complaint [ECF No. 2] in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County. Navient properly removed the
presents claims against Navient in seven counts:
Count I - Declaratory Relief (no loan obligation)
Count II - Negligence .
Count III - Gross Negligence . Count IV - Violation of Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)
Count V - Violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o (“FDCPA”)
Count VI - Violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md.
Code Ann., Com. Law, §§ 13-303(3) and 13-303(4)
Count VII - Violation of the Maryland Consumer Debt
Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202,
instant motion, Navient seeks dismissal of Counts II-VII
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) tests the
legal sufficiency of a complaint. A complaint need only
contain “‘a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, '
in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.'” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (citations
omitted). When evaluating a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a
plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true
and the complaint is viewed in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. However, conclusory statements or “a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not [suffice].” Id. A complaint must
allege sufficient facts “to cross ‘the line
between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to
relief.'” Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d
186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
into whether a complaint states a plausible claim is
“‘a context-specific task that requires the
reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.'” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)). Thus, if “the
well-pleaded facts [contained within a complaint] do not
permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of
misconduct, the complaint has alleged - but it has not
‘show[n]' - ‘that the pleader is entitled to
relief.'” Id. (quoting Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 679 (alteration in original)).
is no doubt that Flax's allegations suffice to plead
plausible claims as stated in Count I. However, as
discussed herein, the Complaint does not adequately plead the
claims asserted in the other Counts.
instant dismissal contest, the Court accepts as true
Flax's allegations that Navient made loans in his name to
pay for his educational expenses by virtue of forged loan
documents of which he had no knowledge.
correspondence related to the student loans was directed to
Flax's father's address, with whom Flax has not
resided. When Flax discovered the loans, he contacted Navient
by letter to protest the authenticity of the
alleges that he has made reasonable attempts to reach some
sort of settlement and has demanded verification of the debt,
including a request for copies of the underlying contracts
and support documentation, but Navient was uncooperative. In
July 2015, Flax sent a letter requesting compliance with the
Federal and Maryland Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts and
Verification of the Debt. Navient responded by requesting a
Letter of Authorization,  pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
1692c(a), authorizing Flax's counsel to communicate with
Navient concerning the disputed loans. Upon receipt of the
signed authorization, Navient has communicated solely with
Flax's counsel regarding the requested documentation.
However, Navient has failed to ...