Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hanson v. TMX Finance, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 19, 2019

JEFFREY W. HANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
TMX FINANCE, LLC dba TITLE MAX OF NEVADA, INC.; TMX FINANCE OF NEAVADA, INC.; and TITLEMAX OF NEVADA, INC. dba TITLEMAX and/or TITLEMAX OF NEVADA, Defendants.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Before the Court are Defendant TitleMax of Nevada, Inc. dba TitleMax's Motion to Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 7; Motion to Stay Proceeding and Strike All Class Allegations, ECF No. 8; and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority, ECF No. 16.

         II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Jeffrey Hanson sues Defendant for negligent and knowing or willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.[1] ECF No. 1. Defendant now moves to compel arbitration. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and Defendant replied. ECF Nos. 9, 12.

         Defendant alternatively moves to stay the matter pending arbitration and to strike all class allegations in the Complaint. ECF No. 8. Plaintiff opposed, and Defendant replied. ECF Nos. 10, 12. The Court previously ruled on the Motion to Stay in part, staying the matter pending resolution of the Motion to Compel Arbitration and deferring the request to strike all class allegations. ECF No. 15.

         Defendant most recently seeks leave to file supplemental authority to support the Motion to Compel Arbitration. ECF No. 16.

         III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Court makes the following findings of fact. Plaintiff completed an application to obtain a short-term loan with Defendant on November 2, 2017. The application contains an arbitration clause, which states:

NOTICE OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: EACH APPLICANT WHO SUBMITS A FULL CREDIT APPLICATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A SEPARATE WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENT (THE “ARBITRATION AGREEMENT”) WITH TITLEMAX AS A CONDITION TO SUBMITTING THIS CREDIT APPLICATION AND IN CONSIDERATION OF TITLEMAX ACCEPTING AND CONSIDERING THIS CREDIT APPLICATION. YOU MAY OPT-OUT OF ARBITRATION AS DESCRIBED IN THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TO GO TO COURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO HAVE A JURY TRIAL, TO ENGAGE IN DISCOVERY (EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR IN THE ARBITRATION RULES), AND TO PARTICIPATE AS A REPRESENTATIVE OR MEMBER OF ANY CLASS OF CLAIMANTS OR IN ANY CONSOLIDATED ARBITRATION PROCEEDING OR AS A PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL. OTHER RIGHTS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IF YOU WENT TO COURT MAY ALSO BE UNAVAILABLE IN ARBITRATION.

         Defendant approved the application on the same day, resulting in a loan agreement between the parties. The agreement states, in part, that:

WAIVER OF RIGHT OT TRIAL BY JURY: TRIAL BY JURY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS THE LAW ALLOWS PARTIES TO WAVIE THIS RIGHT. LENDER AND I KNOWINGLY AND FREELY WAIVE ALL RIGHTS TO A JURY TRIAL FOR ANY SUIT RELATED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO (A) THIS NOTE OR (B) THE LOAN. THIS JURY TRIAL WAIVER WILL NOT CHANGE ANY ARBITRATION CLAUSE TO WHICH LENDER AND I AGREE, SUCH CLAUSE HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE JURY TRIAL WAVIER.

         The agreement defines dispute as having “a broad meaning, ” including “all claims and disagreements related to [the] application, [the agreement], … or [Plaintiff's] dealings with [Defendant].” Under the agreement, Plaintiff also ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.