Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2

Background

The order concerns proceedings in two actions brought by plaintiffs individually and on behalf of proposed classes against National Collegiate Student Loan Trust entities and other defendants. The opinion states that the court heard oral argument on May 5, 2022, concerning the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a qualifying injury that gives the federal court authority to hear the dispute.

The court stated that, during oral argument, the parties raised new legal points and requested new or different relief beyond what appeared in their motion papers.

Orders for supplemental briefing

The court ordered the plaintiffs to file, by May 26, 2022, a supplemental brief of no more than 10 double-spaced pages describing precisely the class or classes they then sought to have certified. For each proposed class, the plaintiffs had to identify:

- the criteria for membership; - the claims the class would pursue, including any time limits; - the defendants against whom each claim would be pursued; and - the subsection of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b) supporting certification.

The court also ordered the plaintiffs to state whether they sought actual damages under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and/or New York Judiciary Law § 487, either individually or for a class. If they sought those damages, the plaintiffs had to address whether recoverable damages included the amounts of state-court judgments obtained by the Trust defendants, amounts collected on those judgments, and costs incurred in responding to or resolving collection efforts. The court noted that the plaintiffs could also discuss how any claimed damages constituted the concrete harm needed for constitutional standing.

The defendants were ordered to file, by May 26, 2022, a supplemental brief of no more than 10 double-spaced pages supporting their new contention that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue any claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or New York General Business Law § 349, including claims identified in paragraphs 274(a), 274(b), 280(a), and 280(b) of the consolidated complaint. The court reminded the defendants that their written motion had expressly excluded certain claims from the requested dismissal and that their motion papers had identified claims that would remain if the motion were granted in full.

Responding briefs, also limited to 10 double-spaced pages, were due June 9, 2022. The court ordered that there would be no reply briefs.

Additional filing instructions and disposition

Judge Barbara Moses directed the parties to promptly provide paper courtesy copies of their previously filed Rule 12(b)(1) motion papers to chambers. The order gave detailed instructions concerning electronic-filing headers, exhibit tabs, binding, and combining exhibits from a declaration filed both publicly and under seal.

The order did not grant or deny the class-certification motion or the motion to dismiss. Instead, it required further briefing and addressed filing procedures.