# GOINES v. TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC

> District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 9, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254293

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 9, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254293

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

AARON GOINS, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 1:19CV489
)
TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LORETTA C. BIGGS, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Confirmation of Arbitration Award by Defendant
TitleMax of Virginia. (“TitleMax”). (ECF No. 294.) The motion requests that the Court
confirm the Corrected Final Award issued by JAMS (“Final Award”) pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 9
and enter judgment on behalf of TitleMax against Plaintiff Priscilla Younger consistent with
the Corrected Final Award. (Id.) Plaintiff does not contest the arbitration award and does not
oppose the motion. (ECF No. 297 at 1.) Plaintiff does however request that the Court include
in its judgment that all counterclaims pending against Plaintiff are also dismissed because
TitleMax did not pursue them in the arbitration, (id.), and TitleMax does not object to this,
(ECF No. 301 at 1).
Courts are divided on whether a federal court may confirm an arbitration award where
there is no “live controversy between the parties regarding the award necessitating judicial
enforcement,” and the Fourth Circuit has not resolved the issue in this circuit. See Brown &
Pipkins, LLC v. SEIU, 846 F.3d 716, 729 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017). However, the Fourth Circuit has
recognized that “[a] confirmation proceeding under 9 U.S.C. § 9 is intended to be summary:
confirmation can only be denied if an award has been corrected, vacated, or modified in
accordance with the Federal Arbitration Act.” Taylor v. Nelson, 788 F.2d 220, 225 (4th Cir.

1986). Plaintiff has not asserted such claim concerning the arbitration award at issue here.
Therefore, the Court will grant TitleMax’s unopposed motion.
The Court notes that it has previously advised the parties that to further judicial
economy, “[t]he most efficient course for the parties would be, in cases where no monetary
award has been made and the arbitration award is uncontested, to merely notify the Court of
the outcome of the arbitration without filing for confirmation of the award.” See Goins v.

TitleMax of Virginia, Inc., No. 1:19CV489, 2021 WL 3856150, at *1–2 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 27,
2021). It is disappointing that TitleMax has not heeded this advice.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Confirmation of Arbitration
Award, (ECF No. 294), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all counterclaims by Defendant TitleMax of

Virginia, Inc., against Plaintiff Priscilla Younger are DISMISSED.
Judgment will be entered simultaneously.
This, the 9th day of May 2023.
/s/Loretta C. Biggs
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10254293. Public record. Not legal advice.