Titlemax of Missouri, Inc. Missouri Cases

Plaintiffs sued TitleMax, alleging various violations and breach of contract, and TitleMax moved to compel arbitration. The circuit court overruled TitleMax's motion. On appeal, TitleMax argued the court erred because valid arbitration agreements existed and some agreements contained delegation clauses. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that an American Arbitration Association letter, which declined to administer claims against TitleMax due to non-compliance, authorized the plaintiffs to submit their claims to the circuit court.

Cynthia Arteaga and other plaintiffs sued TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., alleging various violations related to loan agreements. TitleMax moved to compel arbitration, but the circuit court denied the motion. On appeal, the Eastern District affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that a letter from the American Arbitration Association (AAA) authorized the plaintiffs to submit their claims to the circuit court because the AAA had previously declined to administer TitleMax arbitrations due to the company's non-compliance with consumer rules.

Kiaela Bracy and other plaintiffs sued TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., alleging various statutory and contract violations related to loan agreements. TitleMax moved to compel arbitration, which the circuit court overruled. The Eastern District affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that an American Arbitration Association (AAA) letter, which declined to administer TitleMax arbitrations due to non-compliance with consumer rules, authorized the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in circuit court. The court found that the AAA Letter applied to these plaintiffs as TitleMax consumers with claims at the time the AAA declined to administer arbitrations.

Plaintiffs sued TitleMax alleging various violations related to "title loan" agreements. TitleMax moved to compel arbitration, which the circuit court denied. On appeal, TitleMax argued the circuit court erred because valid arbitration agreements existed and some agreements contained delegation clauses. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that an American Arbitration Association (AAA) letter, which declined to administer claims between TitleMax and its consumers due to TitleMax's non-compliance, authorized the plaintiffs to submit their claims to the circuit court.

TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. appealed the circuit court's judgment overruling its motion to compel arbitration against several plaintiffs. TitleMax argued that valid arbitration agreements existed and that some agreements contained delegation clauses requiring an arbitrator to resolve arbitrability issues. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that an American Arbitration Association (AAA) letter, which declined to administer claims between TitleMax and its consumers due to non-compliance with AAA policies, authorized the plaintiffs to submit their claims to the circuit court.

Cortney Anderson and other plaintiffs sued TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., alleging various violations related to loan agreements. TitleMax appealed the circuit court's judgment overruling its motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that an American Arbitration Association (AAA) letter, which declined to administer claims between TitleMax and its consumers due to non-compliance with AAA policies, authorized the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in the circuit court.

TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. appealed the circuit court's judgment overruling its motion to compel arbitration against several plaintiffs. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) letter, which declined to administer claims between TitleMax and its consumers due to non-compliance with AAA policies, authorized the plaintiffs to submit their claims to the circuit court. The court found that the AAA Letter's broad language regarding "any other claims" applied to these plaintiffs, making arbitration futile.

TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration against Kimberly Abram and other plaintiffs, who had entered into loan agreements containing arbitration provisions. The plaintiffs had attempted to initiate arbitration with the American Arbitration Association (AAA), but the AAA declined to administer their claims due to TitleMax's non-compliance with its consumer rules. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that AAA Rule R-1(d) authorized the plaintiffs to submit their disputes to the circuit court after the AAA declined to administer the arbitrations.

Mary Birmingham and other plaintiffs sued TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., alleging various violations related to "title loans" and breach of contract. TitleMax moved to compel arbitration, which the circuit court denied. On appeal, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that the American Arbitration Association (AAA) Letter authorized the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in circuit court because the AAA had declined to administer TitleMax arbitrations due to TitleMax's non-compliance with consumer rules.

Jamie Brizendine and other plaintiffs sued TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. regarding loan agreements, and TitleMax moved to compel arbitration. TitleMax appealed the circuit court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Eastern District affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that an American Arbitration Association (AAA) letter, which declined to administer claims between TitleMax and its consumers due to TitleMax's failure to comply with AAA rules, authorized the plaintiffs to pursue their claims in the circuit court. The court's decision was governed by the analysis in a companion case.

Glenn Duncan sued TitleMax of Missouri, Inc. for conversion of his vehicle. TitleMax filed a motion to compel arbitration, asserting Duncan had signed a co-owner's consent form containing an arbitration provision. Duncan denied signing the agreement or being present at the store. The trial court denied TitleMax's motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Duncan's challenge to the existence of the arbitration agreement itself negated the need to specifically challenge a delegation provision, and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that Duncan did not sign the agreement.