The district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s claim that defendant discriminated against her in denying her a consolidation loan to combine her two existing student loans.  Defendant was judicially estopped from relying on the arbitration clause in the second loan because at an earlier hearing on whether that clause was unconscionable, defendant claimed it was not because plaintiff could still opt out of the clause (since her loan had still not been consummated).  The arbitration clause in the prior loan could not have been intended to apply to a claim that didn’t arise directly from that loan but arose instead only eight years later when plaintiff applied for a different loan (the consolidation loan).