UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ____________

No. 20-2371 ____________ ELIZABETH PANZARELLA; JOSHUA PANZARELLA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants

v.

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC. ____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Civil No. 2-18-cv-03735) District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker ____________

Argued February 11, 2022 ____________ Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SCIRICA, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: June 14, 2022) James A. Francis David A. Searles Francis Mailman Soumilas 1600 Market Street Suite 2510 Philadelphia, PA 19103 David P. Mitchell [ARGUED] Maney & Gordon 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602 Robert P. Cocco Robert P. Cocco, P.C. 1500 Walnut Street Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Counsel for Appellants Alan J. Butler Megan Iorio Christopher Frascella 1518 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036

Counsel for Amicus/Appellants Lisa M. Simonetti [ARGUED] Greenberg Traurig

2 1840 Century Park East Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Lindsay N. Aherne Greenberg Traurig 1144 15th St. Suite 3300 Denver, CO 80202 Joel M. Eads Greenberg Traurig 1717 Arch Street Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel for Appellee ____________

OPINION OF THE COURT ___________

Rendell, Circuit Judge.

Elizabeth and Joshua Panzarella (“the Panzarellas”) sued Navient Solutions, LLC (“Navient”), claiming that, among other things, Navient violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the “TCPA”). The Panzarellas assert that Navient called their cellphones without

3 their prior express consent using an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) in violation of section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA. The District Court granted summary judgment for Navient. It concluded that Navient’s dialing technology did not qualify as an ATDS under section 227(a)(1) of the TCPA because it viewed a particular component of Navient’s dialing technology as separate from its dialing system. As a result, it erred by failing to consider whether Navient’s dialing “equipment” as a whole qualified as an ATDS. Id. Even though we do not decide whether Navient’s dialing equipment qualified as an ATDS, we find that Navient did not use an ATDS in violation of the TCPA when it called the Panzarellas. Thus, we will affirm the District Court’s order on this alternative ground.

I.

Navient serviced the student loans of Matthew Panzarella, Elizabeth’s son and Joshua’s brother. Matthew listed both his mother and brother as references on student loan applications and promissory notes and, in doing so, provided their cell phone numbers to Navient. Eventually, he became delinquent on his loans and failed to respond to Navient’s attempts to communicate with him. In response, Navient contacted the Panzarellas. Call logs show that, over five months, Navient called the phone number alleged to belong to Elizabeth four times (three of which were unanswered, and one of which may have been answered) and the number alleged to belong to Joshua fifteen times (all unanswered).

During the relevant period, Navient used telephone dialing software developed by Interactive Intelligence Group,

4 Inc (“ININ”),1 the “Interaction Dialer.” This software allows a user to “conduct[] campaigns” during which “calls are placed to contacts based upon information read from a contact list.