Loan 3 paid off Loan Two and had an annual interest rate of 144.4116 percent. Romero v. TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., 762 Fed.Appx. 560, 562 (10th Cir. 2019). On Loan 3, Plaintiff did not receive any additional cash.
The Tenth Circuit has recognized "the fundamental principal that arbitration is a matter of contract," and that, as such, the arbitrability of that contract "is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise." Romero v. TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc. , 762 Fed. Appx. 560, 563 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion , 563 U.S. 333, 339, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) and Spahr v. Secco , 330 F.3d 1266, 1269 (10th Cir. 2003) ). Here, while the parties have agreed to arbitrate issues relating to the scope, enforceability, and validity of the arbitration agreements, the agreements do not address waiver pursuant to litigation conduct.
In contrast, Plaintiffs' claims that they need not “brief class certification issues in opposition to an improper motion to deny” were unsupported by any reference to apposite authority, binding or otherwise.Romero v. TitleMax of New Mexico, Inc., 762 Fed.Appx. 560, 565 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Adams-Chevalier v. Spurlock, No. 16-cv-02691-WYD-STV, 2017 WL 5665149, at *6-7 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017) as acknowledging pre-emptive motions to deny class certification). Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th Cir. 2009).