Defining the Boundaries of Noerr-Pennington Immunity for Litigation Series: Navient v. Lohman

Introduction

In Navient Solutions, LLC v. Jeffrey Lohman, 23-2109 & 23-2163 (4th Cir. 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether a student-loan servicer could pierce Noerr-Pennington immunity by labeling a string of consumer-protection lawsuits under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) as “sham litigation.” Navient Solutions, LLC sued a group of lawyers, marketers, and debt-relief businesses—led by the Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman and GST Factoring, Inc.—alleging they conspired under RICO and tort law to induce borrowers to file meritless TCPA claims in order to extort settlements and debt forgiveness. After a jury verdict for Navient, the district court granted a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that none of the TCPA suits qualified as a “sham.” Navient appealed that ruling.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit, in an opinion by Senior Judge Floyd (joined by Judges King and Quattlebaum), affirmed. The Court held that:

Noerr-Pennington immunity protects genuine petitioning activity—even when pursued through multiple, coordinated actions.
Under the “series” standard from California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited and Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, a plaintiff must show a “pattern of baseless, repetitive claims” to prove sham litigation.
Navient conceded that the TCPA claims relied on unsettled questions about what constitutes an “automatic telephone dialing system” (ATDS), rendering them plausibly meritorious.
Because Navient only sought recoveries directly tied to the litigation and arbitration of those TCPA actions, and because those actions were immunized, the district court correctly granted judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference (1961) and United Mine Workers v. Pennington (1965): Establishing the First Amendment foundation for litigation immunity.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited (1972): Introducing the “sham litigation” exception and defining the series-of-actions test as “a pattern of baseless, repetitive claims.”
Waugh Chapel S., LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers (2013): The Fourth Circuit’s adoption of the California Motor series-specific test over the two-step analysis used for single lawsuits.
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (1993): Clarifying the two-step test for single actions (objective meritlessness and subjective motivation), which Fourth Circuit decisions distinguish from the series test.
Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc. (9th Cir. 2006): Extending Noerr-Pennington immunity to pre-filing, litigation-related activities, illustrating the “breathing space” principle.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)/(b): Governing judgment as a matter of law and post-trial renewal motions.
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid (2021): Resolving the statutory definition of ATDS under the TCPA, highlighting the unsettled nature of the issue before that decision.

Legal Reasoning

Applying the Fourth Circuit’s binding standard for a series of suits, the Court engaged in a holistic inquiry into both objective merit and subjective intent. Key points include:

Objective Merits: Navient conceded that courts were divided on ATDS interpretation, and settlements reflected a genuine evaluation of Navient’s win-loss record. This admission undercut any claim of objective baselessness.
Subjective Motivation: Defendants pursued an unresolved statutory question, not simply to impose costs. The record showed they believed in the merits of the TCPA claims.
Holistic “Sham” Test: Under Waugh Chapel, repeated filings on a colorable theory do not become shams merely by volume. There was no evidence the primary motive was to abuse the judicial process.
Scope of Immunity: Although the Court noted unresolved questions about private arbitration and pre-suit conduct, Navient neither presented arguments on those points nor sought damages for non-litigation activities.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces several principles of petitioning immunity:

Series-of-Suits Immunity: Litigants who pursue a genuine legal debate across multiple cases remain protected under Noerr-Pennington unless each claim is objectively baseless.
Limitation on “Sham” Label: Merely coordinating numerous suits on a contested statutory interpretation does not constitute a sham.
Unsettled Areas of Law: Parties may safely test novel or unsettled issues in multiple forums, so long as they believe in their legal oxygen.
Future RICO and Tort Actions: Plaintiffs alleging conspiracy to file sham litigation must bear a high burden of proving objective baselessness, especially when the underlying claims rest on genuine statutory questions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Noerr-Pennington Immunity: A First Amendment doctrine that shields petitioning the government (including courts) from antitrust or RICO liability, except when the litigation is a “sham.”
Sham Litigation Exception: Two distinct standards exist:
- Single-Suit Test: A claim must be objectively meritless before examining bad intent.
- Series-Of-Suits Test: A holistic inquiry into whether a pattern of filings abuses the judicial process, regardless of individual merits.
TCPA & ATDS: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits robocalls made by an “automatic telephone dialing system” without consent. Courts were split on what technology qualifies as ATDS until the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Duguid.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 50: Allows a court to set aside a jury verdict when no reasonable jury could reach a different result on an essential element.

Conclusion

Navient Solutions v. Lohman cements the Fourth Circuit’s commitment to robust petitioning immunity for coordinated litigation on unsettled legal questions. By affirming that a series of TCPA suits premised on genuine statutory disputes cannot be branded as sham litigation, the Court preserves the “breathing space” guaranteed by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs who allege RICO or tortious schemes must now surmount a demanding series-specific sham test, demonstrating both objective baselessness and an intent to abuse the courts. The decision will resonate widely in antitrust, RICO, consumer-protection, and mass-tort contexts where litigants pursue emergent legal theories.