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. on December 29, 2025. in Guilford County Superior Court, North Carolina (Case No. 25CV030017-400), and transferred to the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on February 20, 2026. These are allegations and procedural statements; the attached arbitration award reflects the findings of arbitrator Gary S. Qualls, and not a court order.
The parties
- Plaintiff is a North Carolina resident who entered into one or more auto loan transactions with one or more of the Defendants.
- Defendant TitleMax of Virginia, Inc. is a predatory auto loan lender. Defendant borrowed money at illegal interest rates (100+%) and then entered North Carolina along with the loans.
Factual background
- Time and time again, arbitrators and courts have concluded that TitleMax violates the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act and engages in unfair and deceptive business practices with its systematic predatory “lending” to North Carolina residents.
- Now, after losing these cases in arbitration, TitleMax has tried a new method to avoid or delay liability for wrongful conduct.
- The plaintiff in this case originally sued TitleMax in state court.
- The federal court in which this case was pending submitted the matter to arbitration.
- TitleMax lost in arbitration. See Figure 1 [Final Award of Arbitrator, AAA Case No. 01-25-0000-1597].
- In previous similar cases, TitleMax resisted confirmation and sought to vacate the judgments in federal court. The Middle District of North Carolina affirmed the previous awards and threatened Rule 11 sanctions for TitleMax’s meritless arguments.
- TitleMax appealed a number of award confirmations to the Fourth Circuit, arguing for the first time that the federal district court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the arbitration awards (in arbitrations ordered by the federal court) under the newly decided Badgerow v. Walters, 596 US 1 (2022), which was decided while these cases were pending.
- Given the change in the law in the meantime, the Fourth Circuit agreed, and now this case, which now has less than $75,000 in dispute, must be affirmed in state court rather than federal court, despite the fact that the case that moved TitleMax to federal court is still pending.
- Now these awards have also been repeatedly upheld here in the Guilford Court Superior Court and the judgment against TitleMax. Plaintiff requests the same relief.
- Despite all this, TitleMax still refuses to pay this price. The plaintiff files this action to confirm and enter final judgment.
The arbitration award (exhibit 1)
The following is excerpted 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 to the Complaint as Exhibit 1.
Arbitrator Gary S. Qualls, appointed pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement and Court Order dated December 6, 2024, and having previously issued an Order on Cross Dispositive Motions and Interim Award dated November 20, 2025 (affirmed, adopted and incorporated into the Final Award), issued the Final Award as follows:
Lawyer fee: NC Gen. Stat. applying § 75-16.1, the arbitrator ruled that $500 per hour is a reasonable hourly rate for the sophisticated analysis and argumentation involved. The arbitrator awarded 17.8 hours of attorney time and found none of the time entries to be excessive, superfluous or otherwise unnecessary. The total award for attorney fees is $8,900.00 ($500 × 17.8 hours). The arbitrator noted that TitleMax did not respond to the fee proposal within the prescribed 14-day period.
Final price and relief:
- Under NC Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1, the plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ 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.
- The above amounts, including all amounts awarded in the Order on Cross Dispositive Motions and Interim Award, are due on or before 30 days after the date of this Final Award.
- American Arbitration Association administrative fees totaling $2,000 will be borne as incurred, and arbitrator fees totaling $5,100 will be borne as incurred.
- This final award by the arbitrator shall constitute a complete settlement of the merits of all claims asserted in this arbitration.
- All claims, defenses and assertions not expressly admitted herein are denied or otherwise disclaimed.
Claims for relief
First claim for damages – Motion to confirm award: The complaint will be handled pursuant to 9 USC § 9 and NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.22 for an order confirming the award. The complaint notes that TitleMax could argue that Snipes v. TitleMax of Va., Inc., 876 SE2d 864 (NC App. 2022) supports vacating the awards, but argues that the issue at issue in Snipes – the arbitrator’s inability to consider a choice of law provision – is not present in these cases.
Second claim for damages – Judgment: The complaint seeks judgment against each applicable defendant for any final judgment, noting that both federal (9 U.S.C. § 18) and state law (NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.25) require the entry of judgment after an order of affirmation has been granted. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has suffered damages due to Defendants’ failure to pay awards in the amount of at least $10,000.00.
Remedies sought
The complaint asks the Court for the following relief:
- That the award is confirmed
- That verdict must be in accordance with the ruling
- The plaintiff has received and recovered interest and attorneys’ fees from the defendant as provided by law
- Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate
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, according to the December 23, 2025 Final Award.
I monitor federal lawsuits involving debt relief companies as an educational tool for consumers, other companies in the industry, and regulators. This project began on February 27, 2026 and covers cases filed on or after February 20, 2026. Cases filed before that date are not included. I am currently following 334 companies in the field of debt relief.
I report on all cases that I can monitor; no company is singled out or targeted. The goal is comprehensive, fair reporting that helps consumers understand the legal landscape.
Important: The information on this page comes directly from court documents. I present the allegations exactly as stated in those documents; I do not interpret, summarize or paraphrase the language of the complaints as this could introduce unintended bias. These are accusationsno factual findings. Each defendant is presumed innocent and has the right to contest the claims in court. A lawsuit is not a finding of misconduct.
You can view the full file at HofListen.
Are you a party in this case? I welcome statements, corrections, and updates from any party: the plaintiff, the defendant, or their counsel. If you would like to add context or an explanation for readers, please contact me directly. I will publish it here.
Frequently asked questions
Has TitleMax been found liable in this federal legal action?
No decision has been made in this proceeding in federal court. The complaint and attached arbitration award reflect that arbitrator Gary S. Qualls ruled in favor of Davis in the AAA arbitration – but TitleMax removed the affirmative action from state court to federal court and the case remains pending. An arbitration award is not the same as a court decision until a court confirms it and enters judgment. TitleMax filed a response on February 27, 2026.
What is an arbitration award procedure?
When a party wins an arbitration award, a court must confirm it before it becomes enforceable as a judgment. Both the Federal Arbitration Act (9 USC § 9) and the North Carolina Uniform Arbitration Act (NC Gen. Stat. 1-569.22) govern this process. Once confirmed, the judgment can be enforced through mechanisms such as wage garnishments and bank levies.
What is the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act?
The NC Consumer Finance Act regulates consumer loans and limits interest rates. The complaint alleges that TitleMax charges rates in excess of 100%, in violation of this statute. North Carolina’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (GS 75-1.1) may also result in treble damages and attorneys’ fees, and provides for the award of attorneys’ fees under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16.1 applied by the arbitrator.
Why did TitleMax take this case to federal court?
According to the complaint, TitleMax has used takedown and procedural tactics in similar cases to delay payment of arbitration awards. The complaint states that the Middle District of North Carolina has previously threatened Rule 11 sanctions for what the court called meritless arguments in similar TitleMax proceedings. The complaint further alleges that TitleMax previously used a Badgerow v. Walters argument in the Fourth Circuit to divert pre-affirmation proceedings from federal to state court.
Source: CourtListener – Davis v. TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., Docket 72305559. The information on this page comes from the court file and the attached arbitration award. The arbitration award reflects the findings of arbitrator Gary S. Qualls; no court decision has been made.
#TitleMax #pay #arbitration #award