From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayo v. Sallie Mae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Mar 11, 2016
Civil No. - JFM-15-1589 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2016)

Opinion

Civil No. — JFM-15-1589

03-11-2016

BRITTANY MAYO v. SALLIE MAE AND NAVIENT


MEMORANDUM

Defendants have brought this motion to compel arbitration. The motion will be granted.

Two of the four promissory notes for private student loans signed by plaintiff included an arbitration clause. The clause was prominent, and the claim in this case filed well within its terms. Federal law strongly favors the arbitration of disputes, see Marmet Health Care Ctr. v. Brown, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (2012), and the three arbitration agreements must be in force pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act.

As noted above, only three of the four promissory notes signed by plaintiff contained arbitration clauses. Nevertheless, it is not in the interest of the parties or the public to have parallel proceedings pending involving the same dispute. Accordingly, this matter will be stayed in its entirety and administratively closed.

A separate order granting defendants' motion to compel arbitration and to stay action is being entered herewith. Date: 3/11/16

/s/_________

J. Frederick Motz

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mayo v. Sallie Mae

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Mar 11, 2016
Civil No. - JFM-15-1589 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2016)
Case details for

Mayo v. Sallie Mae

Case Details

Full title:BRITTANY MAYO v. SALLIE MAE AND NAVIENT

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

Date published: Mar 11, 2016

Citations

Civil No. - JFM-15-1589 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2016)