Court filing
Exhibit D — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 135.6)
Summary
Exhibit D, Document 135-6 in MDL No. 2950, filed June 15, 2020. The exhibit reproduces the civil docket sheet for Fahmia Inc v. Comerica Bank et al., Case #: 3:20-cv-01536-B, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas), filed June 11, 2020 and assigned to Judge Jane J. Boyle, followed by the class action complaint itself against Comerica Inc., Comerica Bank, Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. and Does 1 through 100. The complaint alleges that the defendants refused to pay agent fees owed under the Paycheck Protection Program and invokes 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and 85 Fed. Reg. 20816. It states that the defendants reported processing approximately 13,000 loan applications totaling over $4.1 billion. The closing pages carry the JS 44 civil cover sheet instructions. The exhibit is 35 pages.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 1 of 35
EXHIBIT D
Case
Case:
MDL No. 2950
3:20-cv-01536-B
Document
As of:135-6
06/15/2020
Filed03:35
06/15/20
PM CDT
Page
1 of2 2of 35
JURY
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Texas (Dallas)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:20−cv−01536−B
Fahmia Inc v. Comerica Bank et al Date Filed: 06/11/2020
Assigned to: Judge Jane J. Boyle Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity−Contract Default Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Contract
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Plaintiff
Fahmia Inc represented by Bruce William Steckler
individually and on behalf of all others Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC
similarly situated 12720 Hillcrest Rd, Ste 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
972−387−4040
Fax: 972−387−4041
Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Elaine S Kusel
Mccune Wright Arevalo LLP
One Gateway Center
Suite 2600
Newark, NY 07102
973−737−9981
Bar Status: Not Admitted
L Kirstine Rogers
Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road
Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
972−387−4040
Fax: 972−387−4041
Email: KRogers@stecklerlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Michele Vercoski
Mccune Wright Arevalo LLP
18565 Jamboree Road
Suite 550
Irvine, CA 92612
909−557−1250
Fax: 909−557−1275
Bar Status: Not Admitted
Paul D Stickney
Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
682−313−9656
Email: judgestick@gmail.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good Standing
Richard D McCune , Jr
McCune Wright LLP
2068 Orange Tree Lane
Case
Case:
MDL No. 2950
3:20-cv-01536-B
Document
As of:135-6
06/15/2020
Filed03:35
06/15/20
PM CDT
Page
2 of3 2of 35
Suite 216
Redlands, CA 92374−4555
909−557−1250
Fax: 909−557−1275
Email: ece@mccunewright.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bar Status: Not Admitted
V.
Defendant
Comerica Bank
Defendant
Comerica Inc
Defendant
Comerica Bank & Trust NA
Defendant
Does 1 through 100 Inclusive
Date Filed # Docket Text
06/11/2020 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Comerica Bank, Comerica Bank &
Trust, N.A., Comerica Inc., DOES 1−100, inclusive filed by Fahmia, Inc.. (Filing fee
$400; Receipt number 0539−10908113) Clerk to issue summons(es). In each Notice of
Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the Judges Copy
Requirements and Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the
filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the
judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted,
attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek
admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at
www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: Attorney Information − Bar
Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will
notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Sheet) (Steckler, Bruce) (Entered:
06/11/2020)
06/11/2020 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by
Fahmia, Inc.. (Steckler, Bruce) (Entered: 06/11/2020)
06/11/2020 3 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is
provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge
(Judge Toliver). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (oyh)
(Entered: 06/12/2020)
06/12/2020 4 Summons Issued as to Comerica Bank, Comerica Bank & Trust NA, Comerica Inc,
Does 1 through 100 Inclusive. (oyh) (Entered: 06/12/2020)
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 4 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 30 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
FAHMIA, INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Cause No. 3:20-cv-1536
Plaintiff,
Jury Trial Demanded
v.
COMERICA INC.; COMERICA BANK;
COMERICA BANK & TRUST, N.A. and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc. (“Fahmia” or “Plaintiff”) brings this Class Action
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendants Comerica Inc., Comerica
Bank, Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A. (“Comerica”) and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive (collectively with Comerica, the “Defendants”), seeking compensation
from Defendants, who refuse to comply with the CARES Act that requires it to pay
out of the compensation it received for processing PPP loans, for services Plaintiff
Fahmia and a large number of other agents rendered on behalf of recipients of Small
Business Administration (“SBA”) emergency loans. Plaintiff alleges as follows
-1-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 5 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 2 of 30 PageID 2
upon personal knowledge as to itself and its own acts and experiences, and, as to all
other matters, upon information and belief.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. In response to the shut-down of virtually every business across all non-
essential industries due to COVID-19, the federal government has raced over the
past few months to ease the impact of the shut-down on the U.S. economy. In order
to keep afloat small businesses, and to encourage those businesses to avoid massive
worker layoffs and furloughs further damaging the economy, Congress decided to
create an economic relief program to distribute money to small businesses.
2. In order to distribute the money swiftly to small businesses, Congress
decided to utilize the nation’s financial institutions to take applications and distribute
the funds that would be fully guaranteed by the federal government. However, in
order to avoid delay, Congress decided that the financial institutions would not be
required to verify the accuracy of the applications. Instead, the burden to provide
accurate information was put directly and solely on the small businesses submitting
applications.
3. The applications would need to be simple and the amount of the
economic relief would be based on historical payroll information with specific
limitations. However, as the lenders would not be verifying the information, there
would need to be a number of representations and certifications, and specific
-2-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 6 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 3 of 30 PageID 3
warnings because the failure to provide true and accurate information could subject
the small business owner to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
4. In order for these small businesses to be able to make timely, truthful
and accurate applications, Congress understood that small businesses would need
assistance from the nation’s professional accountants, tax preparers, financial
advisors, attorneys, and other such agents normally relied upon by small businesses.
5. On March 27, 2020, Congress passed the SBA’s Paycheck Protection
Program (“PPP”) which initially authorized up to $349 billion in forgivable loans to
small businesses to cover payroll and other expenses (PPP I). After the initial funds
quickly dried up, Congress added $310 billion additional dollars to the program (PPP
II).
6. The PPP was designed to be fast and straightforward, allowing business
to apply through SBA-approved lenders and await approval. Once approved, lenders
would be compensated in the form of a generous origination fee paid by the federal
government, with the requirement that the lender would be responsible for paying
the fee owed to the loan applicant’s agent (e.g., attorney or accountant). Both the
lender and the agents were specifically forbidden by the PPP from charging the small
business borrower any amounts for the loan or the assistance in preparing the
application for the loan. The amount of the total compensation and the allocation
between the lender and the agents assisting the borrowers in preparing the
-3-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 7 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 4 of 30 PageID 4
application was specifically set out in the PPP. For the majority of loans (those
under $350,000), the lender would receive an amount equal to 5% of the loan as
compensation, and if the borrower used an agent such as a CPA or accountant, the
lender was to pay an amount equal to 1% of the loan amount to the agent. In other
words, compensation from the federal government to the lender and the borrower’s
agent was allocated as 80% to the lender and 20% to the CPA or attorney assisting
the small business borrower.
7. Defendants operate nearly 600 locations centered in several states,
including Texas, Michigan, Arizona, California, and Florida. Defendants report to
date that they have processed and approved approximately 13,000 PPP loan
applications totaling over $4.1 billion in funds. 1 The average PPP loan Defendants
processed was approximately $315,000. Assuming a conservative average fee of
four percent, Defendants have, accordingly, been allocated over $164 million in
origination fees, from which they were required to pay the agents who assisted the
borrowers in submitting applications.
8. However, Defendants apparently decided that they do not need to
complete the final step of the process and based on information and belief have
refused to pay the agents who assisted PPP loan recipients with their applications.
1 See Comerica Paycheck Protection Program Highlights, available at
https://www.comerica.com/content/dam/comerica/en/documents/resources/busines
s/PPP_Infographic_FINAL.pdf (last visited May 28, 2020).
-4-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 8 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 5 of 30 PageID 5
This practice seemed to be a deliberate scheme from the beginning as even though
they were required to pay agents that assisted in the application process, Defendants
did not set up a structure or ask any questions to determine whether borrowers
utilized an agent in completing applications. It appears that this scheme was to claim
ignorance of the existence of the agent as an excuse not to pay the agent its share of
the compensation. This refusal is harming accountants, attorneys, and other agents
who dropped everything (in the midst of tax season) to assist their customers in
filling out these vital loan applications correctly and in compliance with the PPP,
and who were specifically only allowed to be paid for these services out of the
compensation paid to the lender. The Defendants’ failure to pay agents is in blatant
violation of PPP regulations stating that agent fees “will be paid by the lender out of
the fees the lender receives from SBA.”
9. These agents, including Plaintiff, have no other recourse for collecting
fees for assisting borrowers on PPP loan applications because the PPP regulations
delegate the responsibility for paying agents to the lenders alone. And yet,
Defendants have disregarded the regulations and refused to pay agents who assisted
small businesses in receiving PPP funds.
10. Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendants’ practice. As a CPA firm that
does payroll and other small business support functions, Plaintiff assisted at least
one small business client who submitted an application to Defendants that was then
-5-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 9 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 6 of 30 PageID 6
funded through the PPP program. Based on information and belief, Defendants have
received the 5% compensation related to that loan, but have not paid Plaintiff its 1%
agent fee related to the loan.
11. As a result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, Plaintiff, and a large
number of others like it have been deprived of payment for their critical work in
supporting their clients’ PPP loan applications. As such, Plaintiff brings this Class
Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial in order to vindicate its rights and those
of agents everywhere who are similarly situated, and to force Defendants to account
for their blatant violation of the PPP and to pay agents their portion of the
compensation.
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc. is a Certified Public Accounting (“CPA”) firm
incorporated in California, with its principal place of business located in Torrance,
California.
13. Defendant Comerica Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware and
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
14. Defendant Comerica Bank is a Texas banking association
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Comerica Bank competes with large national and
regional financial institutions with respect to various products and services,
including commercial loans, deposits, consumer lending, and other banking services.
-6-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 10 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 7 of 30 PageID 7
15. Defendant Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A., is chartered under the federal
National Bank Act and headquartered in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
16. In this Complaint, references made to any act of any Defendant shall be
deemed to mean that officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives of the
Defendants named in this lawsuit committed or authorized such acts, or failed and/or
omitted to adequately supervise or properly control or direct their employees while
engaged in the management, direction, operation or control of the affairs of the
Defendants and did so while acting within the scope of their employment or agency.
17. Plaintiff is unaware of the names, identities or capacities of the
Defendants sued as Doe Defendants 1 through 100, but is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that such fictitiously-named defendants are responsible in some
manner for the damages and unfair business practices and violation of rights as
described herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to state the true names,
identities, or capacities of such fictitiously-named Defendants when ascertained.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the
Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because, as to the proposed Class
and Subclasses, (a) at least one member of the proposed Class, which consists of at
least 100 members, is a citizen of a different state than Defendants; (b) the claims of
the proposed Class Members exceed $5,000,000 in the aggregate, exclusive of
-7-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 11 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 8 of 30 PageID 8
interest and costs, and (c) none of the exceptions under that subsection apply to this
action.
19. Personal jurisdiction over Defendants is proper because Defendants
transact business in the State of Texas, and a substantial number of the events giving
rise to the claims alleged herein took place in Texas.
20. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2201 because an actual controversy exists between the parties as to their respective
rights and obligations under 85 Fed. Reg. 20816 § (4)(c) (hereinafter, the “PPP
regulations”).
21. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events, acts or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred in this judicial District, including work performed by Plaintiff on
behalf of business clients within this District.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
22. The spread of COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the World Health
Organization (“WHO”) on March 11, 2020.
23. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump issued the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Emergency Declaration, which declared that the
pandemic was of “sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency
declaration for all states, territories and the District of Columbia.”
-8-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 12 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 9 of 30 PageID 9
24. The Federal Government expressly recognized that with the COVID-
19 emergency, “many small businesses nationwide are experiencing economic
hardship as a direct result of the Federal, State and local public health measures that
are being taken to minimize the public’s exposure to the virus.” 2
25. The economic fallout from COVID-19, and the national response to it,
was immediate and enormous. As “stay at home” issues were ordered by states
across the nation, countless businesses were forced by law to overhaul their business
models, scale back their business dramatically, or shutter–either temporarily or
permanently. Business were further harmed as the public began to avoid all public
spaces. Furloughs and layoffs were rampant in the private sector.
26. On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage caused by the
COVID-19 crisis and to overwhelming public pressure, the U.S. Senate passed the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or the CARES Act. The
CARES Act was passed by the House of Representatives the following day and
signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020. Amounting to
approximately $2 trillion, the CARES Act was the single-largest economic stimulus
bill in American history.
2
See Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection
Program, 13 CFR Part 120, Interim Final Rule (“SBA PPP Final Rule”).
-9-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 13 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 10 of 30 PageID 10
27. Critically, the CARES Act created a $659 billion loan program for
business with fewer than five hundred employees, called the “Paycheck Protection
Program” (“PPP”) 3. The goal of the PPP was to provide American small businesses
with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance, with a certain percentage forgivable if
utilized to retain employees and fund payrolls. The loans are fully federally
guaranteed and administered by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). 4
28. Basically, PPP loans operate more like grants if the recipient follows
certain rules, including that at least 75 percent of the loan goes toward payroll. 5
Businesses that follow the rules are permitted to submit a request to their SBA lender
for total forgiveness. Otherwise, the loan matures in two years and carries a one
percent interest rate. 6
29. The SBA was charged with creating the PPP implementing regulations.
It issued the first interim final rule (“Initial Rule”) on April 2, 2020, allowing
businesses to begin applying for PPP loans with all SBA lenders on April 3, 2020.
30. An important piece of the PPP was that applications were to be
processed and funded on a “first-come, first-served” basis—that is, the SBA was to
3
The first phase of the PPP was for $349 billion, and when that quickly ran
out, a second phase was funded for $310 billion.
4
Small Bus. Admin., Docket No. SBA-2020-0015, 13 CFR Part 120,
Paycheck Protection Program 3245-AH34, Interim Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 20814
§ (2)(o) (Apr. 15, 2020).
5
85 Fed. Reg. 20812 § (2)(e); id. at 20813 § (2)(o).
6
Id. at 20813 § (2)(j).
-10-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 14 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 11 of 30 PageID 11
process applications and distribute funds based on the order in which they were
received. This made the SBA’s list of approved lenders key gatekeepers in this
process, which the lenders certainly understood. Because the PPP was to be
administered only through SBA-approved lenders, and because applicants were
applying for funds from the single pot allocated for the program, submitting an
accurate application for a loan through the SBA-approved lender as quickly as
possible was critical.
31. Congress added an incentive for the SBA-affiliated lenders, knowing
they would face a crush of PPP loan applications: for each loan processed and
approved, the bank would receive an origination fee of five percent for loans up to
$350,000; three percent for loans between $350,000 and $2 million; and one percent
for loans between $2 million and $10 million. 7
32. With similar incentives in mind, Congress and the SBA also carved out
a specific benefit for the countless accountants, attorneys, and advisors who would
need to lead or assist their clients in preparing and filing PPP loan applications.
These individuals and entities are referred to as “agents” in the CARES Act and PPP
implementing regulations.
33. As explained in an Information Sheet provided for “lenders,” the SBA
states that ‘[a]n ‘Agent’ is an authorized representative and can be: an attorney; an
7
Id.
-11-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 15 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 12 of 30 PageID 12
accountant; a consultant; someone who prepares an applicant’s application for
financial assistance and is employed and compensated by the applicant; someone
who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing, liquidating, or litigating
SBA loans; a loan broker; or any other individual or entity representing an applicant
by conducting business with the SBA.” 8
34. In addition, the SBA Regulations provide that “Agent fees will be paid
out of lender fees. The lender will pay the agent. Agents may not collect any fees
from the applicant. The total amount that an agent may collect from the lender for
assistance in preparing an application for a PPP” loan is as follows (“Agent Fees”):
one percent (1%) for loans up to $350,000; 0.50% for loans between $350,000 and
$2 million; and 0.25% for loans between $2 million and $10 million. 9
35. Within this context, Congress and the SBA set up a straightforward
system for the disbursement of PPP loan funds where the applicant is assisted by an
agent: (i) the agent prepares the application and/or necessary supporting documents
for the client’s application; (ii) the client applies for the PPP loan through the lender;
(iii) the lender submits the application to the SBA; (iv) the SBA approves the loan
and sends the client the money, through the lender, and eventually pays the lender’s
8
U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Information
Sheet Lenders,
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136PPP%20%Lender%20Information%20F
act%20Sheet.pdf (last accessed May 25, 2020).
9
85 Fed. Reg. 20816 § (4)(c).
-12-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 16 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 13 of 30 PageID 13
origination fee; and (v) the agent submits the request for fee payment to the lender
with the agent’s fee based upon (a) the work performed for the client and (b) the
caps on agent fees provided by the SBA’s PPP regulations.
36. Unfortunately, based on information and belief, Defendants are
refusing to pay the fees of agents for their assistance in providing an accurate and
truthful application for funding.
37. Upon information and belief, this refusal is a company-wide policy.
Further, the fact that Defendants set up the application process without even asking
the borrower if they utilized the assistance of an agent, suggests that the Defendants
did not want to have any record of the agent information in their files.
38. This policy of refusal to pay to agents “Agent Fees” that are due, and
that only the lenders are authorized to pay, stands as an immediate threat to these
agents’ abilities to receive payment. In the midst of an unprecedented
economic/pandemic crisis, this policy represents short-sighted profit-padding at
best, and blatantly illegal conduct, at worst.
39. On May 7, Comerica Bank circulated a press release touting that it had
processed approximately 13,000 PPP loan applications. Comerica’s Chairman and
CEO explained that “thus far we have received SBA approval for each of the
complete and eligible applications submitted through Comerica.” He continued to
explain that Comerica would continue “serving our customers by processing these
-13-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 17 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 14 of 30 PageID 14
critical loans, helping small businesses cover daily expenses and keep workers on
their payroll.” He did not mention the necessary role played by agents such as
Plaintiffs in ensuring that applications were submitted completely and accurately.
40. Refusing to pay Agent Fees is also inconsistent with agreements
Defendants made in order to become approved PPP lenders. Specifically, based on
information and belief, Defendants were required to fill out and sign the “CARES
Act Section 1102 Lender Agreement” for each loan. This submission requires each
putative PPP lender to certify, under penalty of perjury, that it (i) “is in compliance
and will maintain compliance with all applicable requirements of the [PPP], and PPP
Loan Program Requirements[,]” (ii) will “service and liquidate all covered loans
made under the Paycheck Protection Program in accordance with PPP Loan
Requirements[,] and (iii) will “close and disburse each covered loan in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the PPP Authorization and PPP Loan
Requirements.”
41. To the extent Defendants had to certify, at any point, that they would
follow the PPP’s regulations in making PPP loans, they were not being truthful.
Defendants’ policy to refuse to pay Agent Fees directly violates the PPP’s
implementing regulations.
42. It is pursuant to these representations that Defendants were able to
process approximately 13,000 PPP loan applications totaling over $4.1 billion in
-14-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 18 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 15 of 30 PageID 15
funds. 10 The average PPP loan Defendants processed was approximately $315,000.
Assuming a conservative average fee of four percent, Defendants have, accordingly,
been allocated over $164 million in origination fees, from which they were required
to pay the agents who assisted the borrowers in submitting applications.
43. Knowing that they were required to pay agents a percentage of PPP
loan origination fees if an agent assisted an applicant in preparing and submitting
the application, Defendants elected not to ask borrowers whether they utilized an
“agent” to assist them in the application process and have not paid Plaintiff or
similarly situated agents compensation from funded PPP loans.
PLAINTIFF FAHMIA’S EXPERIENCE
44. Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc. is a California CPA firm which has provided
financial services to clients in the Southern California Area for over 30 years,
including bookkeeping, taxation, payroll services, financial planning and consulting
for small businesses and individuals. In March, Plaintiff became aware that the
CARES Act had been signed into law. Plaintiff, knowing that the COVID-19 crisis
would significantly impact clients’ businesses, sought to obtain PPP loans through
various SBA-approved lenders on behalf of clients.
10 See Comerica Paycheck Protection Program Highlights, available at
https://www.comerica.com/content/dam/comerica/en/documents/resources/busines
s/PPP_Infographic_FINAL.pdf (last visited May 28, 2020).
-15-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 19 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 16 of 30 PageID 16
45. Plaintiff’s professionals spent considerable time familiarizing
themselves with the Act and the related SBA Regulations, in particular, (a) Section
1102, which permits the SBA to guarantee 100% of Section 7(a) loans under the PPP
and (b) Section 1106 of the Act, which provides forgiveness of up to the full
principal amount of qualifying loans guaranteed under the PPP.
46. In or about March, April, and May, 2020, Plaintiff assisted many clients
in the gathering and analysis of their documents, as well as the calculations and
preparation of the loan applications.
47. Based on the SBA Regulations, Plaintiff understood that it was not
allowed to charge clients a fee relating to the application process. The agents were
only allowed to receive compensation from the agents’ share of the estimated $20
billion in fees that the Federal Government paid the Lenders for originating the PPP
loans.
48. For its clients, Plaintiff had the primary role in calculating the payroll
information needed for the application, and providing the clients’ accounting
information, advice, documentation in support of the PPP loan application. Plaintiff
will have ongoing responsibility for advising clients on the forgiveness of the PPP
loan.
49. Plaintiff provided all of these services to a client who obtained a PPP
loan from Comerica in the amount of $66,900. Based on information and belief,
-16-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 20 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 17 of 30 PageID 17
Pacific Premier Bank was paid or will be paid, an origination fee of $3,345, of which
Plaintiff is entitled to $669 (1% of total loan amount) of that fee for its work as the
agent of the borrower in submitting the application and documentation.
50. Defendants did not comply with the SBA Regulations because they
have not paid Plaintiff the agent fees to which it is entitled despite awarding PPP
loans to Plaintiff’s client for whom Plaintiff acted as a PPP agent. Instead,
Defendants retained all of the Agent Fees for themselves.
51. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful and unfair actions, Plaintiff and the
Class have suffered financial harm by being deprived of the statutorily mandated
compensation for the professional services provided to clients in assisting them with
obtaining PPP loans.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
52. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated as a nationwide Class, defined as follows:
All persons and businesses who served as an agent in relation
to, and provided assistance to a client in relation to, the
preparation and/or submission of a client’s PPP loan
application to Comerica which resulted in a loan being funded
under the PPP. Plaintiff further brings this action on behalf of
a subclass of individuals defined as follows:
California Subclass. All persons and businesses in California
who served as an agent in relation to, and provided assistance
to a client in relation to, the preparation and/or submission of a
client’s PPP loan application to Comerica which resulted in a
loan being funded under the PPP.
-17-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 21 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 18 of 30 PageID 18
53. Excluded from this Class and Subclass (hereinafter “the Class” unless
otherwise indicated) are: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and
members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or its parents have a
controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)
persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class;
(4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits
of otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the
legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.
54. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this Class
definition, including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, or any other time, based upon new facts
obtained during discovery.
55. Numerosity: The Class is composed of hundreds of Agents (“Class
Members”) whose joinder in this action would be impracticable. The disposition of
their claims through this class action will benefit all Class Members, the parties, and
the courts.
56. Commonality and Predominance: There is a commonality in questions
of law and fact affecting the Class. These questions of law and fact predominate
-18-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 22 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 19 of 30 PageID 19
over individual questions affecting individual Class Members, including, but not
limited to, the following:
a. Whether Defendants’ conduct violates the CARES Act and/or its
implementing regulations;
b. Whether Defendants are required to compensate Plaintiff out of the
origination fees obtained from SBA through the PPP;
c. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to compensation by Defendants for its
work assisting in its client’s PPP loan application;
d. Whether Defendants’ conduct was willful and knowing;
e. Whether Defendants submission of completed Form 2484 constituted
an agreement;
f. Whether Defendants breached that agreement;
g. Whether Defendants’ conduct was pursuant to a company-wide policy
or policies; and
h. Whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes unjust enrichment.
57. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because
class proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable. The
damages suffered by the individual members of the Class will likely be relatively
small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the
-19-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 23 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 20 of 30 PageID 20
complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions. Thus, it would be difficult
and not economical for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief
from Defendants’ misconduct. Even if members of the Class could sustain such
individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because
individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the
complex legal and factual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a
class action presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of
single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single
court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered, and uniformity of
decisions ensured.
58. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of, and are not antagonistic to,
the claims of all Class Members, in that Plaintiff and members of the Class sustained
damages arising out of Defendants’ uniform wrongful conduct.
59. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
interests of the Class and has retained counsel with substantial experience in
litigating complex cases, including consumer fraud and class actions. Plaintiff’s
claims are representative of the claims of the other members of the Class. That is,
Plaintiff and members of the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendants’
uniform conduct. Plaintiff also has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class,
and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Both Plaintiff and its counsel
-20-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 24 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 21 of 30 PageID 21
will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class and have the financial
ability to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor counsel have any interest adverse to other Class
Members.
60. Ascertainability: Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants
keep extensive computerized records of their loan applications through, inter alia,
computerized loan application systems and federally-mandated record-keeping
practices. Defendants have one or more databases through which all of the
borrowers may be identified and ascertained, and it maintains contact information,
including electronic mail and mailing address. From this information, the existence
of the Class Members (i.e., borrowers’ Agents) can be determined, and thereafter, a
notice of this action can be disseminated in accordance with due process
requirements.
61. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally
applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with respect
to the Class as a whole.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I – DECLARATORY RELIEF
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
-21-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 25 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 22 of 30 PageID 22
63. Plaintiff and the Class represent individuals who are “agents” as
defined by the SBA regulations for the PPP.
64. Plaintiff and the putative Class have assisted clients with the process of
preparing applications, and applying for, PPP loan funds. Defendants, despite the
clear command of the SBA’s PPP regulations, have refused to make these payments.
An actual controversy has arisen between Plaintiff and the Class, on one hand, and
Defendants on the other, wherein Defendants deny by their refusal to pay that they
are obligated to pay Plaintiff’s and the Class’s “agent” fees pursuant to PPP
regulations.
65. Plaintiff and the Class seek a declaration, in accordance with SBA
regulations and pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that
Defendants are obligated to set aside money to pay, and pay third-party agents –
within the SBA-approved limits—for the work performed on behalf of a client in
relation to the preparation and/or submission of a PPP loan application that resulted
in a funded PPP loan.
COUNT II – BREACH OF CONTRACT, THIRD PARTY
BENEFICIARY
66. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
-22-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 26 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 23 of 30 PageID 23
67. Based on information and belief, Defendants entered into an agreement
with the SBA in connection with the loans funded in the PPP.
68. The agreements required that Defendants would adhere to all PPP rules
and regulations and incorporate these requirements by reference. Defendants and
the SBA understood that agents involved in the preparation and submission of PPP
loan applications would need to be compensated.
69. The SBA’s PPP regulations specifically require that PPP lenders pay
the fees of any “agent” that assists with the PPP loan application process, within
limits.
70. Defendants understood that Plaintiff and the Class were intended
beneficiaries in this agreement. Nevertheless, Defendants have refused to live up to
their end of the bargain and have uniformly refused to pay agent fees to Plaintiff and
the Class.
71. By refusing to pay agent fees in accordance with SBA regulations,
Defendants are violating the terms of their agreement, thereby damaging Plaintiff
and the Class. Plaintiff and the class thus ask this Court to award them damages
sufficient to make them whole, and compensate them for work they did in preparing
clients’ PPP loan application for loans that were funded, consequential damages, and
all other damages available at law.
-23-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 27 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 24 of 30 PageID 24
COUNT III - VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW
(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
73. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17200, “any
unlawful, unfair…business act or practice” is prohibited in the State of California.
This statute creates a private right of action based on any unlawful or unfair act
committed in the course of business, particularly where it provides the unlawful
actor with an unfair business advantage. Local, state and/or federal law can serve as
the basis for an “unlawful…business act or practice[.]”
74. The SBA’s PPP regulations specifically provide that “lenders” who
provide loans under the program will be responsible for paying “agent” fees, within
prescribed limits.
75. Defendants have uniformly refused to pay these fees to Plaintiff and the
Class. As a result, Defendants have engaged in unlawful conduct that has cost
Plaintiff and the Class millions of dollars in fees, collectively.
76. Defendants have also engaged in “unfair” business practice through this
conduct, as well as set forth above.
-24-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 28 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 25 of 30 PageID 25
77. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing acts and practices,
Defendants have received, or will receive, income, profits, and other benefits, which
they would not have received if they had not engaged in the violations of Section
17200 described in this Complaint.
78. Because Plaintiff and the Class have been harmed by Defendants’
unreasonable, unlawful, and unfair business practice of refusing to pay agents who
assist in the preparation and submission of PPP loan application materials, Plaintiff
asks that Defendants be held liable for restitution, be enjoined from further refusing
to pay such agent fees, and that Plaintiff be awarded all other such relief available
by law. Pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17203, Plaintiff seeks
an order of this court compelling Defendants to provide restitution and injunctive
relief and calling for Defendants, and each of them, to cease unlawful and unfair
business practices in the future.
COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT
79. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
80. Unjust enrichment, or restitution, may be alleged where a Defendant
unjustly obtains and retains a benefit to the Plaintiff’s detriment, where such
retention violates fundamental principles of equity, justice, and good conscience.
-25-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 29 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 26 of 30 PageID 26
81. Here, Defendants have obtained millions of dollars in benefits in the
form of PPP loan origination fees. A portion of those fees were to be paid to agents,
like and including Plaintiff, who assisted in their clients’ PPP loan applications. But
Defendants are refusing to pay those fees, in contravention of PPP regulations.
82. Principles of justice, equity, and good conscience demand that
Defendants not be allowed to retain these agent fees. Defendants have fallen short
in their duties as lenders, and during a crisis no less. As a result, Plaintiff and the
putative Class have been unable to obtain the agent fees due to them.
83. Accordingly, Defendants must disgorge the portion of any and all PPP
origination fees that they have retained to the extent they are due to Plaintiff and the
putative Class in their capacities as agents.
COUNT V – CONVERSION
84. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding
paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.
85. Under the SBA regulations, Plaintiff and the Class, as PPP agents, have
a right to agent fees that must be paid from the amount of lender fees provided to
Defendants for processing the funded PPP loan applications of Plaintiff’s client and
the Class’s clients.
-26-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 30 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 27 of 30 PageID 27
86. The SBA regulations state that “[a]gent fees will be paid out of lender
fees” and provide guidelines on the amount of agent fees that should be paid to the
PPP agent, based upon the size of the PPP loan.
87. Additionally, the SBA regulations require that lenders, not loan
recipients, pay the agent fees. The SBA regulations unequivocally state that
“[a]gents may not collect fees from the applicant.”
88. Plaintiff and the Class assisted clients with applying for PPP loans,
including gathering and curating information necessary for completing PPP loan
applications that were subsequently funded. Due to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s
efforts, their clients were awarded PPP loans, through applications made with
Defendants. As such, Plaintiff has a right to immediate possession of the agent fees.
89. Although Plaintiff is entitled to agent fees under the SBA regulations,
Defendants have refused to provide those fees to Plaintiff and the class, thus keeping
the agent fees that were paid to it for purposes of being passed on to the agents. By
withholding these fees, Defendants have maintained wrongful control over
Plaintiff’s property inconsistent with Plaintiff’s entitlements under the SBA
regulations.
90. Defendants committed civil conversion by retaining monies owed to
Plaintiff and Class members.
-27-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 31 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 28 of 30 PageID 28
91. Plaintiff and the Class have been injured as a direct and proximate cause
of Defendants’ misconduct. Plaintiffs and the Class, as such, seek recovery from
Defendants in the amount of the owed agent fees, and all other relief afforded under
the law.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
92. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues to the fullest extent
permitted under applicable law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Fahmia, Inc. individually and on behalf of the Class,
respectfully prays for the following relief:
(a) An order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff
as the
representative of the Class, and appointing its counsel as Class Counsel;
(b) An order declaring that Defendants’ actions, as set out above,
constitute
unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of contract on behalf of third-party
beneficiary, violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., and violate the SBA’s
PPP regulations;
(c) An award of all economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory,
-28-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 32 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 29 of 30 PageID 29
and punitive damages available under the law and caused by Defendants’ conduct,
including without limitation, actual damages for past, present and future expenses
caused by Defendants’ misconduct, lost time and interest, and all other damages
suffered, including any damages likely to be incurred by Plaintiff and the Class;
(d) An award of reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees;
(e) An award of pre- and post-judgment interest, to the extent
allowable;
(f) The entry of an injunction and/or declaratory relief as necessary to
protect the interests of the Plaintiff and the Class; and
(g) Such other further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.
Dated: June 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Bruce W. Steckler
Bruce W. Steckler
Bar No. 00785039
L. Kirstine Rogers
Bar No. 24033009
Paul Stickney (of counsel)
Bar No. 00789924
STECKLER GRESHAM
COCHRAN PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
Dallas, Texas 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
bruce@stecklerlaw.com
krogers@sgc.law
judgestick@gmail.com
-29-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 33 of 35
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document 1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 30 of 30 PageID 30
Richard D. McCune
Michele M. Vercoski
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 550
Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
rdm@mccunewright.com
mmv@mccunewright.com
Elaine S. Kusel
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NY 07102
Telephone: (973) 737-9981
esk@mccunewright.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Putative
Class
-30-
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case MDL No. 2950 Document 135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 34 of 35
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) - TXND (Rev. 06/17) CIVIL COVER
Case 3:20-cv-01536-B Document SHEET
1-1 Filed 06/11/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID 31
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Fahmia, Inc. DEFENDANTS Comerica Inc.
Comerica Bank
Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Los Angeles County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Dallas County
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC
Bruce W. Steckler
12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045, Dallas, TX 75230
972-387-4040
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
u 1 U.S. Government u 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State u 1 u 1 Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 Xu 4
of Business In This State
u 2 U.S. Government u 4
X Diversity Citizen of Another State u 2 u 2 Incorporated and Principal Place X 5
u u 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a u 3 u 3 Foreign Nation u 6 u 6
Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
u 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY u 625 Drug Related Seizure u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 375 False Claims Act
u 120 Marine u 310 Airplane u 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 u 423 Withdrawal u 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
u 130 Miller Act u 315 Airplane Product Product Liability u 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
u 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability u 367 Health Care/ u 400 State Reapportionment
u 150 Recovery of Overpayment u 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS u 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury u 820 Copyrights u 430 Banks and Banking
u 151 Medicare Act u 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability u 830 Patent u 450 Commerce
u 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal u 835 Patent - Abbreviated u 460 Deportation
Student Loans u 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application u 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) u 345 Marine Product Liability u 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
u 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY u 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits u 350 Motor Vehicle u 370 Other Fraud u 710 Fair Labor Standards u 861 HIA (1395ff) u 490 Cable/Sat TV
u 160 Stockholders’ Suits u 355 Motor Vehicle u 371 Truth in Lending Act u 862 Black Lung (923) u 850 Securities/Commodities/
X 190 Other Contract
u Product Liability u 380 Other Personal u 720 Labor/Management u 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
u 195 Contract Product Liability u 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations u 864 SSID Title XVI u 890 Other Statutory Actions
u 196 Franchise Injury u 385 Property Damage u 740 Railway Labor Act u 865 RSI (405(g)) u 891 Agricultural Acts
u 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability u 751 Family and Medical u 893 Environmental Matters
Medical Malpractice Leave Act u 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS u 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
u 210 Land Condemnation u 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: u 791 Employee Retirement u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff u 896 Arbitration
u 220 Foreclosure u 441 Voting u 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) u 899 Administrative Procedure
u 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment u 442 Employment u 510 Motions to Vacate u 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of
u 240 Torts to Land u 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision
u 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations u 530 General u 950 Constitutionality of
u 290 All Other Real Property u 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes
Employment Other: u 462 Naturalization Application
u 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - u 540 Mandamus & Other u 465 Other Immigration
Other u 550 Civil Rights Actions
u 448 Education u 555 Prison Condition
u 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
u 1 Original
X u 2 Removed from u 3 Remanded from u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict u 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Breach of contract in failing to comply with CARES Act; declaratory relief
VII. REQUESTED IN u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
X DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: X
u Yes u No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
06/11/2020 /s/ Bruce W. Steckler
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
everse (Rev. 06/17) eeaMBL No. 2950 Document135-6 Filed 06/15/20 Page 35 of 35
atroons Ro AE NT g1836-B Document 1-1. Piled 06/11/20 Page 2 of 2 PagelD 32
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency,
use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at
the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment,
noting in this section "(see attachment)".
I. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an
"X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box | or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. — Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark
this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an '"X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit
code that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions,
Vv. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation — Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation — Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite
jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If a related case exists, whether pending or closed,
insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. A case is related to this filing if the case: 1) involves some or all of the
same parties and is based on the same or similar claim; 2) involves the same property, transaction, or event; 3) involves substantially similar issues of
law and fact; and/or 4) involves the same estate in a bankruptcy appeal.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.135.6.pdf
- Size
- 627,649 bytes
- SHA-256
- 29ddb8dcc7db784861a3a51d3fe91d783c8fc63f87dfb25067f14d875c90b32a
- Original
- No public link identified.