1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Eastern District of Virginia

Richmond Division

__________________________________________

In re: Shirley Dean Taylor

Debtor

SHIRLEY DEAN TAYLOR,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ALLIED TITLE LENDING, LLC d/b/a ALLIED 

CASH ADVANCE, and

CERASTES, LLC,

Defendants.

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 17-30142-KRH

Chapter 13

Adv. Pro. No. 18-03003-KRH

COMMONWEALTH’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE PLEADINGS IN INTERVENTION

The Plaintiff-Intervenor, Commonwealth of Virginia, by, through, and at the relation of 

the Attorney General of Virginia, Mark R. Herring (the “Intervenor” or the “Commonwealth”), 

states as follows in support of its Motion for Leave to File Pleadings in Intervention pursuant to 

Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7024 of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Allied is an open-end credit lender that made loans to Virginia consumers at an annual 

interest rate of 273.75% from July 28, 2013 through at least July 24, 2017. While Virginia 

requires consumer lenders to cap interest rates at 12%, it provides an exception for lenders 

extending credit “as described in § 6.2-312,” which is the open-end credit plan statute. Va. Code 

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 1 of 7
2

§ 6.2-1501(B)(3). Allied attempted to claim this exception, but it failed to comply with the 

provisions of § 6.2-312 by imposing a finance charge before the expiration of a minimum 25-day 

grace period. Allied is subject to the consumer finance statutes, but it is not licensed as a 

consumer finance lender. The loans it made that violate these statutory provisions are therefore 

void and uncollectible. Va. Code § 6.2-1541. Allied has proceeded to collect on these debts by 

filing Proofs of Claim in this Bankruptcy Court. 

The Commonwealth filed a Complaint in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond (the 

“Circuit Court matter”) against Defendant Allied Title Lending, LLC d/b/a Allied Cash Advance 

(“Allied”) on September 12, 2017 for violations of the consumer finance statutes.1Since that 

time, Ms. Taylor filed her adversary proceeding in this Court (“the Bankruptcy matter”), 

objecting to the Proof of Claim Allied filed which stems from her purported open-end credit plan 

loan with it. Ms. Taylor’s Amended Complaint filed on March 25, 2018 objects to all Proofs of 

Claim filed by Allied on a class-wide basis, because the debts upon which Allied attempts to 

collect are void and uncollectible. 

The Commonwealth has appeared in this Court to be heard regarding Defendant Allied’s 

Motion to Certify certain legal questions to the United States District Court and regarding the 

Commonwealth’s potential intervention in the Bankruptcy matter during the pretrial conference. 

At both matters, the Court inquired of the Commonwealth about its position on the Bankruptcy 

matter as well as the status of the Circuit Court matter. This Court scheduled two matters to be 

heard on November 15, 2018, including Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and Defendant Allied’s 

Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Commonwealth now moves to intervene in this adversary 

 

1 The original Complaint also included allegations that Allied violated the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, 

Virginia Code §§ 59.1-196 et seq., but the Circuit Court struck the Commonwealth’s VCPA claim on January 22, 

2018. The Commonwealth was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint on September 26, 2018, and Allied 

has filed a Demurrer in response, which remains pending.

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 2 of 7
3

proceeding, because the legal issues, claims, and defenses raised in its Richmond Circuit Court 

matter, Plaintiff’s adversary proceeding, and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Ms. Taylor’s 

objections to the Proofs of Claim on a class basis are identical. The Commonwealth is seeking to 

intervene as a plaintiff to object to Allied’s Proofs of Claim and for leave to file the Opposition 

to Allied’s Motion to Dismiss.

II. ARGUMENT

Bankruptcy Rule 7024 permits parties to intervene in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding 

in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 24(b) grants this Court 

discretion to permit the Commonwealth to intervene in the above-captioned action if it “has a 

claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” and that

discretion is broad. Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). 

A movant seeking permissive intervention must satisfy four criteria. First, the movant 

must have “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or 

fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B); Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., 314 

F.R.D. 180, 183 (E.D. Va. 2016). The Commonwealth’s Circuit Court matter and Ms. Taylor’s 

objections to Allied’s Proofs of Claim allege that Allied violated the Virginia consumer finance 

statutes, and that its loans are void and uncollectible. Further, the Commonwealth and Ms. 

Taylor are seeking the same relief as a result of these claims. Accordingly, the Commonwealth 

satisfies this first criterion.

Second, the intervention must not “unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the 

rights of the original parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3); Hill v. W. Elec. Co., 672 F.2d 381, 386 

(4th Cir. 1982). The Commonwealth’s intervention in the adversary proceeding will not 

prejudice the parties, because the Commonwealth’s goal is to avoid inconsistent results for 

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 3 of 7
4

similarly-situated parties in multiple courts. Accordingly, all parties benefit from the 

Commonwealth’s intervention, and the Commonwealth satisfies the second criterion for 

permissive intervention.

Third, the motion must be timely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1); Alt v. United States EPA, 

758 F.3d 588, 589 (4th Cir. 2014). The Bankruptcy matter is in its beginning stages. This Court 

has not yet rendered a decision about preliminary issues such as arbitration, motions to dismiss, 

and motions to stay. The Commonwealth’s intervention at this juncture is timely, because it 

would afford the Commonwealth an opportunity to be heard on identical legal issues at an 

appropriate stage in the litigation.

And fourth, there must be an independent ground of subject matter jurisdiction for the 

intervenor’s claims. Shanghai Meihao Elec., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 223 F.R.D. 386, 387 (D. 

Md. 2004). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims raised by the 

Commonwealth in its proposed Complaint in Intervention because the claims arise in and are 

related to the Bankruptcy matter. 28 U.S.C. 1334(b). 

III. CONCLUSION

The Commonwealth has satisfied the requirements for permissive intervention in the 

Bankruptcy matter pursuant to Rule 7024 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 

24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court should grant it leave to file the attached 

Complaint in Intervention and its Opposition to Allied’s Motion to Dismiss.

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 4 of 7
5

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

EX. REL. MARK R. HERRING,

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: /s/ Erin E. Witte______________

Mark R. Herring

Attorney General

Cynthia E. Hudson

Chief Deputy Attorney General

Samuel T. Towell

Deputy Attorney General

Richard S. Schweiker, Jr. 

Chief and Senior Assistant Attorney General

David B. Irvin (VSB No. 23927)

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Erin E. Witte (VSB No. 81096)

James E. Scott (VSB No. 88882)

Assistant Attorneys General

Consumer Protection Section

Predatory Lending Unit

202 North Ninth Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

Phone: (703) 359-6716

Fax: (804) 786-0122

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 5 of 7
6

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on the 8

th day of November 2018, a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing Memorandum in Support of Motion for Leave to File Pleadings in Intervention was 

delivered via email and/or the electronic case filing (ECF) system to the following: 

Robert B. Van Arsdale, Esq. 

Office of the United States Trustee 

701 East Broad Street, Suite 4304 Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Email: USTPRegion04.RH.ECF@usdoj.gov 

David R. Ruby, Esq.

William D. Prince, IV, Esq.

Thompson McMullan, P.C.

100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor

Richmond, VA 23219

Email: druby@t-mlaw.com

Counsel for Defendant Allied Title Lending, LLC

Daniel Ross, Esq.

Weinstein & Riley, P.S.

2001 Western Ave., Suite 400

Seattle, WA 38121

Email: danielr@w-legal.com

Counsel for Defendant Cerastes, LLC

Mark C. Leffler, Esq. 

Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq. 

Boleman Law Firm, P.C. 

P.O. Box 11588 

Richmond, VA 23230 

Tel: (804) 358-9900 

Fax: (804) 358-8704 

Email: mcleffler@bolemanlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff Shirley Dean Taylor

Dale W. Pittman, Esq.

The Law Office of Dale W. Pittman, P.C. 

The Eliza Spotswood House 

112-A West Tabb Street 

Petersburg, VA 23803 

Tel: (804) 861-6000 

Counsel for Plaintiff Shirley Dean Taylor

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 6 of 7
7

Thomas D. Domonoske, Esq.

Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.

Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C. 

763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1A 

Newport News, VA 23601 

Tel: (540) 442-7706 

Counsel for Plaintiff Shirley Dean Taylor

_________ /s/ Erin E. Witte__________

Counsel

Case 18-03003-KRH Doc 108-1 Filed 11/08/18 Entered 11/08/18 15:40:34 Desc 

 Memorandum in Support Page 7 of 7