@112 515th; of CNBEH EEarrqaeP?IB .

ROCKINGHAM SUPERIOR COURT
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2008-2
v.
MANSI U. PARIKH AND UDAYAN C. 
Docket No. 21 8-201 83
INTERIM ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Plaintiff National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2 has brought this action to
enforce a student-loan obligation against Defendants Mansi U. Parikh, the student, and
Udayan C. Parikh, a co-signer on the note. Defendants move to dismiss the complaint,
alleging that Plaintiff lacks standing because it is not a valid assignee of the promissory
note. In response, Plaintiff ?led documents with the Court that it believes prove that it is
the current noteholder. Neither party has objected to the Court?s consideration of these
documents. See DiFruscia v. N.H. Den?: of Pub. Works and Highways, 136. NH. 202,
204 (1992) ("Atthough normally the court's decision on a motion to dismiss is based
solely on the allegations in the pleadings, if additional evidence is submitted, without
objection, the trial court should consider it when making its ruling?).

it does not appear to be disputed by the parties that in order to have standing to
sue on a note, one must have an interest in the note, either as the original noteholder or
as an assignee. S_ee;, Premier Capital, LLC v. Skaltsis, 155 N.l-l. 110, 115?16
(2007); Lovette v. Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 3004-1, 149 So. 3d 735, 737 (Fla.
Dist Ct. App. 2014); Nat?l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-1 v. Strafford

County Superior Ct, No. at 3 (Jan. 8, 2016) (Order, Houran J.).

 

1

I Nor does either party dispute that the original holder of Defendants? note was Charter
One Bank, N.A. gag Obj. Mot. Dismiss 1T 2.

What is disputed is whether Charter One assigned the note to Plaintiff. in
support of standing, Plaintiff submits a ?Pool Supplement,? in which Charter One
purportedly transfers student ioans it holds to The National Collegiate Funding, LLC.
S_ee_ Obj. Mot. Dismiss Ex. 0 at 1?4. Then, pursuant to a ?Deposit and Sale
Agreement,? The National Collegiate Funding, LLC conveyed Charter One?s student
loans to Plaintiff. id_. at 6?15. As Defendants point out, however, only loans
identi?ed in ?Schedule 2? of the Pool Supplement were transferred by Charter One to
The National Coliegiate Funding, LLC. The issue is whether Defendants?
student loan was among the teens identi?ed in Schedule 2 and thereby conveyed under
the Pool Supplement.

Plaintiff's version of the Pool Supplement is ?ve pages. At the bottom of the
fourth page is the header ?Schedule with no text underneath. id, at 4. On the
next page is what appears to be Defendants? ioan information. l_o_l; at 5. Thus, Plaintiff
argues that Schedule 2 identi?es Defendants? loan and was therefore one of the loans
assigned under the Pool Supplement. Obj. Mot. Dismiss 1m 3, 4. But there is a
discrepancy between Plaintiff?s version of the Pool Supplement, which identi?es
Defendants? loan, and the publicty available version, which does not contain a ?fth page.
In the latter version, the Pool Supplement ends on the fourth page; there is no text

underneath or after the ?Schedule 2? header. See Resp. Obj. Mot. Dismiss Ex. 

 

1 This version of the Pool Supplement was fiied with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
avaiiable at

363?99f000t3899681 06000402mationai-
ex9923_361206.htm. See also N.H. R. Ev. 201(3), 

2

Given the discrepancy between the Pool Supplement Plaintiff has tendered and
the public version the Court would like to give Plaintiff a further opportunity to
demonstrate the connection between the loan identi?ed on page 5 with the Pool
Supplement. As it stands, there is evidence that Plaintiff has simply appended
Defendants? loan information to the Pool Supplement in order to show that the loan was
among those listed in Schedule 2. Without more information, the Court is inclined to
?nd that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that it received Defendants? loan as part of the
above-described transaction.

Accordingly, Plaintiff will have 10 days from the notice of this decision to

supplement its objection to the motion to dismiss.

 

 

So Ordered.
Remit. E5 .30! (f \m gm
DateQ 2? Margue?te L. Wageling

Presiding Justice