In Cox v. Community Loans of America, Inc., 2014 WL 1216511 (M.D.Ga. 2013), Judge Land found that a private right of action existed against a vehicle title-loan company under the Military Lending Act, and found that class certification would be appropriate for charging loans that exceed the MLA’s 36% limit.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of active duty military service members and their dependents in a class action against several vehicle title loan com-panies based on the companies’ alleged violation of the Military Lending Act (“MLA”), 10 U.S.C. § 987 (2006).FN1 After entering into the vehicle title loan transactions, Plaintiffs were unable to redeem their car titles, and their vehicles were either repossessed or subject to repossession. Plaintiffs maintain that these vehicle title loan transactions are prohibited by the MLA because the annual percentage rate of interest for each loan far exceeded the MLA’s limit of thirty-six percent. Plaintiffs assert claims under the MLA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq., and state law.  ¶  As explained in the following discussion, the Court finds that a private right of action exists for violations of the MLA, so Defendants are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ MLA claims. The Court further finds, however, that the present record does not support Plaintiffs’ RICO claims, and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to those claims. Consequently, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of the RICO claims is denied. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs seek damages on their MLA claims that are not merely incidental to equitable relief, so Plaintiffs’ MLA claims are not suitable for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). The Court does find that the certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class is warranted to the extent explained in the remainder of this Order.