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 facts are taken directly from the complaint filed by Linda Davis against TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. in Guilford County Superior Court, North Carolina (Case No. 25CV030017-400) on December 29, 2025, and removed to U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on February 20, 2026. These are allegations and procedural representations; the attached arbitration award reflects findings by Arbitrator Gary S. Qualls, not a court judgment.

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. Defendant loaned money at illegal interest rates (100+%) and then entered North Carolina in conjunction with the loans.

Factual Background

1. 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.
2. Now, after losing these cases in arbitration, TitleMax has tried a new method to avoid or delay liability for its tortious conduct.
3. Plaintiff in this action originally sued TitleMax in state court.
4. The federal court where this matter was pending ordered the matters to arbitration.
5. TitleMax lost at arbitration. See Exhibit 1 [Final Award of Arbitrator, AAA Case No. 01-25-0000-1597].
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Now these awards have also repeatedly been confirmed here in Guilford Court Superior Court and Judgment entered against TitleMax. Plaintiff seeks the same relief.
10. 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.

The Arbitration Award (Exhibit 1)

The following is taken from the Final Award of Arbitrator Gary S. Qualls, issued December 23, 2025, in AAA Case No. 01-25-0000-1597 (Linda Davis v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. d/b/a TitleMax), and attached as Exhibit 1 to the complaint.

Arbitrator Gary S. Qualls, having been designated in accordance with the arbitration agreement and the court order dated December 6, 2024, and having previously rendered an Order on Cross Dispositive Motions and Interim Award dated November 20, 2025 (confirmed, adopted, and incorporated into the Final Award), issued the Final Award as follows:

Attorney Fee Award: Applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1, the Arbitrator found that $500 per hour is a reasonable hourly fee for the sophisticated analysis and argumentation involved. The Arbitrator awarded 17.8 hours of attorney time, finding none of the time entries excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. The total attorney fee award is $8,900.00 ($500 × 17.8 hours). The Arbitrator noted that TitleMax did not respond to the fee motion within the prescribed 14-day period.

Final Award and Relief:

1. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1, Claimant is entitled to attorney fees in the amount of $8,900.00, in addition to the $8,500 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages specified to be awarded in the November 20, 2025 Interim Award.
2. The above sums, including all amounts awarded in the Order on Cross Dispositive Motions and Interim Award, are to be paid on or before 30 days from the date of this Final Award.
3. The administrative fees of the American Arbitration Association totaling $2,000 shall be borne as incurred, and the compensation of the arbitrator totaling $5,100 shall be borne as incurred.
4. This Final Award of Arbitrator is in full settlement of the merits of all claims submitted to this Arbitration.
5. All claims, defenses, and contentions not expressly granted herein are denied or otherwise rejected.

Claims for Relief

First Claim for Relief — Motion to Confirm Award: The complaint moves pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9 and NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.22 for an Order Confirming the Award. The complaint notes that TitleMax may argue that Snipes v. TitleMax of Va., Inc., 876 S.E.2d 864 (N.C. App. 2022), supports vacating the awards, but states the issue present in Snipes — the arbitrator’s failure to consider a choice of law provision — is not present in these cases.

Second Claim for Relief — Judgment: The complaint moves for a Judgment against each applicable Defendant for each Final Award, noting that both federal (9 U.S.C. § 18) and state (NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.25) law require entry of Judgment after an order of confirmation is granted. The complaint alleges Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendants’ failure to pay the Awards, in an amount of at least $10,000.00.

Remedies Sought

The complaint prays the Court for the following relief:

• 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 provided by law
• Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper

The total arbitration award at issue is $267,400, consisting of $8,500 in compensatory damages, $250,000 in punitive damages, and $8,900 in attorney fees, per the Final Award dated December 23, 2025.

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.