Rodriguez v. Navient Solutions CA2/2

Filed 8/24/15 Rodriguez v. Navient Solutions CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

DAVID RODRIGUEZ, B258981

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC530031) v.

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Judge. Reversed and remanded.

Akerman, Justin D. Balser, Dennis N. Lueck, Jr., for Defendant and Appellant.

Golden & Cardona-Loya, Jeremy S. Golden for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

A student who signed three promissory notes sued his loan servicer for alleged wrongful collection practices. The servicer established that two of the notes have arbitration clauses governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.) (the FAA). Plaintiff did not timely exercise his contractual right to reject arbitration as a means of dispute resolution. In denying defendant’s petition to compel arbitration, the trial court improperly required defendant to prove that plaintiff’s lawsuit is encompassed by the arbitration clauses. We reverse and remand. The burden is on plaintiff to prove that none of his claims arise from the promissory notes containing arbitration clauses. FACTS Plaintiff David Rodriguez filed suit against defendant Navient Solutions, Inc. (Navient), the company that services his student loans.1 He alleged that Navient violated the Rosenthal Unfair Debt Collections Practices Act (Rosenthal) by engaging in harassment; making false representations; misstating the amount of a debt; and using unfair means to collect a debt. He also alleged that Navient invaded his privacy and converted money it seized from his bank account. Navient petitioned to stay the lawsuit and compel arbitration. It showed that in 2006, plaintiff signed a promissory note for a “Signature” loan, attached to the petition as Exhibit A. Exhibit A contains an arbitration clause, which allows either party to elect arbitration and compel the other party to arbitrate. It encompasses “any claim, dispute or controversy,” including “disputes concerning the validity, enforceability, arbitrability or scope of the Arbitration Agreement or the Note; disputes involving alleged fraud or misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence or violation of statute, regulation or common law.” In 2007, plaintiff signed a second promissory note for a Signature loan, attached to the petition as Exhibit B. Exhibit B contains the same arbitration clause as Exhibit A. Exhibits A and B are expressly governed by the FAA.