Davis v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00137

Primary Source: View Original Complaint and Arbitration Award (PDF) — Davis v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00137-LAF-JGM

Facts as Alleged in the Complaint

The following is taken verbatim from the complaint filed in state court and removed to federal court. These are allegations; no finding of fact has been made.

The Parties

1. Plaintiff is a North Carolina resident who entered into one or more car title loan transaction(s) with one or more of the Defendants.
2. Defendant TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. is a predatory car title loan lender.

Factual Allegations

3. Defendant loaned money at illegal interest rates (100+%) and then entered North Carolina in conjunction with the loans.
4. Time after time arbitrators and courts have concluded that TitleMax is violating the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act and committing Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices with its systematic predatory “loans” to North Carolinians.
5. Now, after losing these cases in arbitration, TitleMax has tried a new method to avoid or delay liability for its tortious conduct.
6. Plaintiff in this action originally sued TitleMax in state court.
7. The federal court where this matter was pending ordered the matters to arbitration.
8. TitleMax lost at arbitration. See Exhibit 1.
9. In prior similar matters, TitleMax opposed confirmation and sought to have awards vacated in Federal Court. The Middle District of North Carolina confirmed the prior awards and threatened Rule 11 sanctions for TitleMax’s meritless arguments.
10. TitleMax appealed some award confirmations to the Fourth Circuit, arguing for the first time that federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enter Judgments on the arbitration awards (in arbitrations the federal court ordered) pursuant to the newly decided Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), which was decided while these cases were pending.
11. Given the change in law in the interim, the Fourth Circuit agreed, and now this matter, which now involves less than $75,000 in dispute, must be confirmed in State Court, rather than Federal Court, despite the fact that the case that TitleMax removed to Federal Court remains pending.
12. Now these awards have also repeatedly been confirmed here in Guilford Court Superior Court and Judgment entered against TitleMax. Plaintiff seeks the same relief.
13. Despite all of this, TitleMax still refuses to pay this award. Plaintiff files this action seeking to confirm and enter Judgment on the Final Award.

Claims for Relief

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF — Motion to Confirm Awards — All Defendants

14. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained above.
15. Plaintiff moves pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 and NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.22 for an Order Confirming the Awards.
16. TitleMax will likely argue that Snipes v. TitleMax of Va., Inc., 876 S.E.2d 864 (N.C. App. 2022), supports vacating the awards. However, the issue present in Snipes — the arbitrator’s failure to consider a choice of law provision — is not present in these cases.
17. As such, an Order ought be issued confirming the Award.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF — Judgment — All Defendants

18. Plaintiff realleges the allegations contained above.
19. Both federal (9 U.S.C. § 13) and state (NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.25) law require entry of Judgment after an order of confirmation is granted.
20. Plaintiff moves for a Judgment against each applicable Defendant for each Final Award.
21. Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ failure to pay the Awards, which amount is at least the sum of $10,000.00 each.

Remedies Sought

• That the Award be Confirmed;
• That Judgment be entered consistent with the Award;
• That Plaintiff have and recover of Defendant interest and attorneys’ fees as by law provided;
• For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has TitleMax been found liable in this federal court proceeding?

No finding has been made in this federal court proceeding. The complaint and attached arbitration award reflect that Arbitrator Gary S. Qualls found in Davis’s favor in the AAA arbitration — but TitleMax removed the state court confirmation action to federal court and the matter remains pending. An arbitration award is not the same as a court judgment until a court confirms it and enters judgment. TitleMax filed an Answer on February 27, 2026.

What is an arbitration award confirmation proceeding?

When a party wins an arbitration award, a court must confirm it before it becomes enforceable like a judgment. Both the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. § 9) and North Carolina’s Uniform Arbitration Act (NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.22) govern this process. Once confirmed, the judgment can be enforced through mechanisms such as wage garnishment and bank levies.

What is the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act?

The NC Consumer Finance Act regulates consumer lending and limits interest rates. The complaint alleges TitleMax charged rates exceeding 100%, violating this statute. North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (G.S. 75-1.1) can also result in treble damages and attorney fees, and provides for the attorney fee award under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1 applied by the Arbitrator.

Why did TitleMax remove this case to federal court?

According to the complaint, TitleMax has used removal and procedural tactics in similar cases to delay paying arbitration awards. The complaint states the Middle District of North Carolina previously threatened Rule 11 sanctions for what the court called meritless arguments in similar TitleMax proceedings. The complaint further states that TitleMax had previously used a Badgerow v. Walters argument in the Fourth Circuit to redirect prior confirmation proceedings from federal to state court.

Source: CourtListener — Davis v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., Docket 72305559. Information on this page is taken from the court filing and attached arbitration award. The arbitration award reflects findings by Arbitrator Gary S. Qualls; no court judgment has been entered.