The named defendants, Georgia Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc., and Daniel Feehan collectively, “GCA” appeal from the State Court of Cobb County’s order holding them in contempt and striking their arbitration defenses in this contract case. In the same appeal, GCA also challenges two of the court’s prior discovery orders, the violation of which served as the basis for its finding of contempt.1 For the following reasons, we affirm. The record shows the following relevant facts. GCA is a Georgia company which contracted with Community State Bank, a South Dakota bank, to offer “payday” loans in Georgia.2 On August 6, 2004, the plaintiffs/appellees, each of whom borrowed money through the payday loans,3 filed suit against GCA alleging, among other things, conversion of funds through a predatory lending scheme, theft by deception, fraud, and conspiracy to offer loans that violated Georgia law.4 The plaintiffs’ loan documents identified the lender as “Community State Bank” of Milbank, South Dakota hereinafter, “the bank”. The complaint alleged that GCA entered into a sham partnership with the bank in order to claim that it was only making loans on behalf of the bank and, thus, secure immunity from Georgia’s usury laws on federal preemption grounds. According to the complaint, the bank had little involvement in the loans other than lending its name to the transaction and receiving a small portion of the loan proceeds, and it alleged that GCA, not the bank, was the de facto lender in the payday loans. The complaint alleged that, since Georgia companies are prohibited under Georgia law from making payday loans, the loan contracts in this case were null and void. The complaint also alleged that the loan contracts were unconscionable adhesion contracts and that the arbitration agreements contained in the contracts were unenforceable. The complaint did not assert any claims against the bank or under any federal law.
On September 7, 2004, GCA filed a notice of removal of the case to federal district court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. While the case was still pending in federal court, however, GCA filed a motion to stay and to compel arbitration pursuant to the contracts’ arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs requested limited discovery on the issue of whether the arbitration agreements were unenforceable due to procedural unconscionability and were unenforceable adhesion contracts. GCA opposed the request and raised numerous objections to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests. On December 13, 2005, before discovery was completed on the issue of whether the arbitration agreements were enforceable, the federal court remanded the case back to the state court.
