Court filing
Exhibit Full Compliance Complaint — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 150.2)
Summary
An exhibit marked EXHIBIT B, filed June 17, 2020 as Document 150-2 in MDL No. 2950. It reproduces a class action complaint with a jury demand entered on the docket of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 5, 2020 in Case 1:20-cv-22339, brought by Full Compliance, LLC and Zamora & Hernandez, PLLC on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated agents. The complaint names bank lenders in its caption, among them Amerant Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and seeks fees and other compensation the plaintiffs say are due to them as participants in the Paycheck Protection Program. Its parties section describes each plaintiff's accounting and consulting practice and each defendant's charter and headquarters. The exhibit runs 40 pages and includes an AO 440 summons form.
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
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 1 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 1 of 36
EXHIBIT B
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FULL COMPLIANCE, LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, and ZAMORA &
HERNANDEZ, PLLC, a Florida Professional
Limited Liability Company, individually and
on behalf of similarly situated businesses
and individuals,
Case No. _________
Plaintiffs,
CLASS ACTION
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AMERANT BANK, N.A., BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., BANKUNITED, N.A.,
CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, CELTIC
BANK CORP. d/b/a CELTIC BANK, CIBC
BANK USA, FIRST CITIZENS BANK &
TRUST COMPANY, FIRST HORIZON
BANK, GROVE BANK & TRUST,
INTERAMERICAN BANK, A FSB, J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., LIVE OAK
BANKING COMPANY, OCEAN BANK,
PARADISE BANK, PROFESSIONAL
BANK, REGIONS BANK, TD BANK, N.A.,
TRUIST BANK, VALLEY NATIONAL
BANK, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Full Compliance, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Zamora &
Hernandez, PLLC, a Florida Professional Limited Liability Company (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),
bring this Class Action Complaint (“Complaint”) on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated agents against Defendants for fees and other compensation due to them as participants in
the Federal Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 2 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 2 of 36
Defendants: Amerant Bank, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Celtic Bank Corporation d/b/a Celtic
Bank, First Citizens Bank & Trust Company, TD Bank, N.A., BankUnited, N.A., Cambridge Trust
Company, CIBC Bank USA, First Horizon Bank, Grove Bank & Trust, Interamerican Bank, a
FSB, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Live Oak Banking Company, Ocean Bank, Paradise Bank,
Professional Bank, Truist Bank, Valley National Bank, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively,
“Defendants” or the “Lenders”), and allege as follows based upon their knowledge, and upon
information and belief, including investigation conducted by their attorneys:
PARTIES
1. Full Compliance, LLC (“Full Compliance”) is a Florida Limited Liability Company
with a principal place of business located in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Full Compliance provides its clients
with a broad range of accounting, tax, bookkeeping, payroll and consulting services.
2. Zamora & Hernandez, PLLC (“Zamora & Hernandez”) is a Florida Professional
Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business located in Miami, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Zamora &
Hernandez provides its clients with a broad range of tax, accounting, and consulting services for
individuals, small businesses, trusts, estates, nonprofit organizations, governmental units and
common interest real estate associations.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant Amerant Bank, N.A. (“Amerant”)
(formerly known as Commerce Bank) is a federally-chartered banking institution with its
headquarters located in Coral Gables, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is authorized to conduct
business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, Amerant conducts substantial
business within this District.
2
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 3 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 3 of 36
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“BofA”) is a
federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Charlotte, North Carolina,
and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief,
BofA conducts substantial business within this District.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant BankUnited, N.A. (“BankUnited”) is a
federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami Lakes, Florida, and
is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief,
BankUnited conducts substantial business within this District.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Cambridge Trust Company
(“Cambridge”) is a Massachusetts state-chartered banking institution, with its headquarters located
in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State.
Upon information and belief, Cambridge conducts substantial business within this District.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant Celtic Bank Corporation (“Celtic”)” is a
Utah state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Salt Lake City, Utah, and
is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, Celtic
conducts substantial business within this District.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant CIBC Bank USA (“CIBC”) is an Illinois
state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Chicago, Illinois, and is
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, CIBC
conducts substantial business within this District.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant First Citizens Bank & Trust Company
(“First Citizens”) is a North Carolina state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters
located in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the
3
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 4 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 4 of 36
State. Upon information and belief, First Citizens conducts substantial business within
this District.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant First Horizon Bank (“First Horizon”) is a
Tennessee state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in in Memphis,
Tennessee, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information
and belief, First Horizon conducts substantial business within this District.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Grove Bank & Trust (“Grove Bank”) is a
Florida state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami, Miami-Dade
County, Florida, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon
information and belief, Grove Bank conducts substantial business within this District.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant Interamerican Bank, A FSB
(“Interamerican”) is a federally-chartered savings banking institution with its headquarters located
in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of
the State. Upon information and belief, Interamerican conducts substantial business within
this District.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”)
is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in New York, New York,
and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief,
Chase conducts a substantial business within this District.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Live Oak Banking Company (“Live Oak”)
is a North Carolina state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Wilmington,
North Carolina, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon
information and belief, Live Oak conducts substantial business within this District.
4
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 5 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 5 of 36
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ocean Bank (“Ocean Bank”) is a Florida
state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Miami, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and
belief, Ocean Bank conducts substantial business within this District.
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Paradise Bank (“Paradise”) is a Florida
state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Boca Raton, Florida, and is
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, Paradise
conducts substantial business within this District.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Professional Bank (“Professional”) is a
Florida state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Coral Gables, Miami-
Dade County, Florida, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon
information and belief, Professional conducts substantial business within this District.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendant Regions Bank (“Regions”) is an Alabama
state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Birmingham, Alabama, and is
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, Regions
conducts substantial business within this District.
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant TD Bank, N.A. (“TD”) is a federally-
chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, and is
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, TD
conducts substantial business within this District.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Truist Bank (“Truist”) (a combination of
BB&T and SunTrust) is a North Carolina state-chartered banking institution with its headquarters
5
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 6 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 6 of 36
located in Charlotte, North Carolina, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the
State. Upon information and belief, Truist conducts substantial business within this District.
21. Upon information and belief, Defendant Valley National Bank (“Valley”) is a
federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Passaic, New Jersey, and is
authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and belief, Valley
conducts substantial business within this District.
22. Upon information and belief, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”)
is a federally-chartered banking institution with its headquarters located in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, and is authorized to conduct business under the laws of the State. Upon information and
belief, Wells Fargo conducts substantial business within this District.
23. In this Complaint, when reference is made to any act of any Defendant, such
reference shall be deemed to mean that the officers, directors, agents, employees, or representatives
of the Defendant named in this lawsuit committed or authorized such acts, or failed 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 Defendant and did so while acting
within the scope of their employment or agency.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because this lawsuit is a proposed nationwide class action in which: (1)
at least some members of the proposed class (“Class”) have different citizenship than
Defendant(s); (2) the proposed Class consists of more than 100 persons or entities; and (3) the
claims of the Class exceed $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate.
6
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 7 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 7 of 36
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are
residents of Florida, do business in this District, and/or a substantial number of the events giving
rise to the claims alleged herein took place in Florida.
26. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the alleged claims occurred in this District
given that Plaintiffs applied on behalf of their clients for PPP loans, and/or introduced their clients
to the Defendants to obtain PPP loans while in this District, and Defendants marketed, promoted,
and took applications for, and/or funded, PPP loans in this District.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Background
27. On January 21, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”)
confirmed the first U.S. case of a new coronavirus known as COVID-19.
28. On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the
COVID-19 outbreak to be a “public health emergency of international concern.”
29. On March 11, 2020, the WHO declared that the spread of COVID-19 had become
a pandemic.
30. On March 13, 2020, President Trump issued the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) Emergency Declaration applicable to the United States that declared that the
pandemic was of “sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an emergency declaration for all
states, territories and the District of Columbia.”
7
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 8 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 8 of 36
31. On March 25, 2020 1, in response to the economic damage caused by the COVID-
19 crisis, the United States Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
(the “CARES Act” or the “Act”). The CARES Act (P.L. 116-136) was passed by the House of
Representatives the following day and signed into law by President Trump on March 27, 2020.
32. The Act, the largest economic stimulus and rescue package in United States history,
included $377 billion in federally-funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion
governmental lending program, administered by the United States Department of Treasury
(“Treasury”) and the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), a United States government agency
that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses nationwide.
33. As part of the CARES Act, the Federal Government created the $349 billion PPP,
providing loans to small- and medium-sized businesses of less than 500 employees. The PPP was
created to provide businesses with eight weeks of cash-flow assistance, with a certain percentage
forgivable if utilized to retain employees and fund payrolls. The loans are backed by the SBA,
administered by Treasury, and funded through private lenders, including banks and financial
services firms (“Lenders”) such as Defendants. Pursuant to the SBA PPP Interim Final Rule
codified at 13 CFR Part 120 (the “SBA PPP Interim Final Rule”), the PPP is a limited funding
program as funds are provided on a “first-come, first-served basis.” See 13 CFR Part 120, p. 13.
34. Congress elected to use the SBA to distribute the PPP funds rather than create a
new federal agency with new attendant federal bureaucracy in order to best ensure that borrowers
in need would be rapidly connected to federal funds. The velocity by which the PPP money would
1
Five days later, on March 30, 2020, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis issued a statewide stay-at-
home Executive Order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
8
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 9 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 9 of 36
find its way into the hands of the borrowers, to which the Agents substantially contributed, was
considered to be and remains of paramount importance to save Main Street America.
35. Treasury announced on April 3, 2020, that small- and medium-sized businesses and
sole proprietors could apply and receive loans to cover their payroll and other expenses through
approved SBA Lenders. Beginning on April 10, 2020, independent contractors and self-employed
individuals could apply as well. 2
36. In its April 15, 2020 PPP Interim Final Rule, the SBA 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.” 3
37. On April 24, 2020, President Trump signed the Paycheck Protection Program and
Health Care Enhancement Act (“PPPEA”). The PPPEA added an additional $310 billion in PPP
funding, bringing the total PPP funds available to lend to $659 billion.
38. Treasury’s PPP Information Sheet (Lenders) (the “PPP ISL”), consistent with the
SBA PPP Interim Final Rule (collectively, the “SBA Regulations”), creates a rapid-lending system
with three (3) participants:
a. a Lender who funds the PPP loans backed by the Federal Government;
b. a small- or medium-sized “Main Street” borrower who obtains the PPP loan for
the specified purpose (the “Borrower”); and
c. an independent agent of the Borrower (the “Agent”), often a local accountant,
business consultant, attorney, employee of the applicant, or payroll service, who
2
See https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP--Fact-Sheet.pdf.
3
See Small Business Administration; Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck
Protection Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 20,816 (April 15, 2020).
9
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 10 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 10 of 36
is often closest to the small- and mid-size local businesses, many of whom do
not have their own banking relationships, who brings the Borrower to the
Lenders and helps shepherd the Borrower through the PPP loan process.
39. It is through the Agent that the PPP ensures the rapid and efficient allocation of a
limited pool of dollars under its “first-come, first-served” approach. Without the valuable
assistance of their Agents, the Borrowers, many of whom are unsophisticated in the banking and
lending arena, would be shut out of obtaining PPP funds, undermining the essence of the PPP as
designed by Congress. In fact, the original tranche of PPP funding was exhausted in about two (2)
weeks after the program opened.
40. Under the same SBA Regulations, both the Lenders and Agents are paid mandatory
fees under the PPP for their respective work.
41. The SBA Regulations define Agent 4 under the PPP to broadly include:
a. “An attorney;
b. An accountant;
c. A consultant;
d. Someone who prepares an applicant’s application for financial assistance and
is employed and compensated by the applicant;
4
Separately, the SBA for other purposes similarly defines an Agent in 13 CFR Section 103.1(a)
to also include “an authorized representative, including attorney, accountant, consultant, packager,
. . . or any other individual or entity representing an [a]pplicant . . . For purposes of SBA’s business
loan programs, the term Agent includes but is not limited to: . . . (2) Packager: An Agent who
prepares the Applicant’s application for financial assistance and is employed and compensated by
the Applicant . . . (3) Loan Broker: . . . an Agent who . . . assists the Applicant in finding an SBA
Lender that will be willing to make a loan . . . .”
10
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 11 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 11 of 36
e. Someone who assists a lender with originating, disbursing, servicing,
liquidating, or litigating SBA loans;
f. A loan broker; or
g. Any other individual or entity representing an applicant by conducting business
with the SBA.” 5 (Emphasis Added).
42. The Agent, as defined by the SBA, is not the Lender’s agent, it is the Borrower’s.
The SBA Regulations do not require or mandate that an Agent be “approved” by a Lender in
writing or otherwise before the Agent assists the Borrower, or that the Agent even be approved by
the SBA at all, to entitle the Agent to its Fee for the work performed under the PPP. All that is
required is that the Agent fit into one of the broad categories outlined in Paragraph 44 above and
do the work in connecting the Borrower to the PPP funds.
43. Without the critical and necessary work performed by Plaintiffs and the Class
Members as Agents under the PPP who most often have the closest relationship to the Borrowers,
many of whom lack their own direct relationship with lenders, the CARES Act would not
accomplish Congress’ expressed legislative intent: The Senate explicitly requested Treasury to
“issue guidance to lenders and agents to ensure that the … loans prioritize[] small business
concerns and entities in underserved and rural markets, including veterans and members of the
military community, small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically
disadvantaged individuals…, women, and businesses in operation for less than 2 years.” 6
(Emphasis added).
5
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP%20Lender%20Information%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.
6
H.R. 748, CARES ACT, PL 116-136 (March 27, 2020; 134 Stat. 281).
11
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 12 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 12 of 36
44. The SBA Regulations also expressly provide how each of the PPP participants
(Borrower, Lender, and Agent) will benefit from (and be compensated under) the program, to
incentivize them to participate in the PPP and ensure the rapid distribution of the scarce federal
funds. For example, the PPP Borrower receives 100 percent (100%) of the loan amount without
any deductions for fees or costs.
45. For the Lenders, the SBA Regulations provide that they will be generously
compensated based on the balance of the financing at the time of final disbursement (the “Lender
Fees”). Specifically, the SBA is required to pay Lenders fees in the following amounts for
processing PPP loans:
a. Five percent (5%) for loans of not more than $350,000;
b. Three percent (3%) for loans of more than $350,000 and less than $2,000,000;
and
c. One percent (1%) for loans of at least $2,000,000. 7
46. In addition, the Lenders (but not the Agents) have the opportunity to earn interest
on the PPP loans if they are not forgiven under the program.
47. For the Agents, the SBA Regulations incentivize them to bring the Borrowers and
their loan packages to the Lenders by expressly providing 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 “Agent Fees”) (Emphasis added). “The total amount of Agent Fees that an agent may collect
from the lender may not exceed:
a. One (1) percent for loans of not more than $350,000;
7
Id.
12
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 13 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 13 of 36
b. 0.50 percent for loans of more than $350,000 and less than $2 million; and
c. 0.25 percent for loans of at least $2 million” 8 (Emphasis added).
48. The SBA Regulations also reflect that the Secretary of the Treasury “determined
that the [A]gent [F]ee limits . . . are reasonable based upon the application requirements and the
fees that lenders receive for making PPP loans.” 9
49. By its terms, the PPP does not allow the Lender to negotiate or “pre-approve” the
amount of fees the Agent will receive under the PPP. That is addressed in the SBA Regulations,
including the portion of the Lender Fee the Agent is entitled to for bringing the Borrower and its
completed application to the Lender.
50. Based on information and belief, Defendants funded PPP loans for Borrowers
represented by Plaintiffs and the Class, received their Lender Fees from the Federal Government,
and failed to pay the Agent Fees earned by the Plaintiffs and Class out of the Lender Fees received.
51. Defendants have either failed and refused to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial
percentage of, the monies owed in Agent Fees to Plaintiffs and the Class, thus retaining for
themselves all of the statutory fees allotted by the Government for Agents as part of the PPP,
despite the work performed by the Agents in assisting the Borrowers in securing their PPP loans.
52. Defendants often cite to their own internal policies for refusing to pay the Agent
Fees, or attempting to reduce the statutory fee owed to the Agents under the PPP and consistent
with Congressional intent.
As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are not being compensated for their work, and for
their valuable and necessary contribution to the PPP as intended by Congress.
8
Id.
9
See Small Business Administration; Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck
Protection Program, 85 Fed. Reg. 20,816 (April 15, 2020).
13
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 14 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 14 of 36
Plaintiffs, in Their Role as Agents, Assist Their Clients With Applying for PPP Loans
Under the CARES ACT
53. On or about March 27, 2020, Plaintiffs became aware that the CARES Act had been
signed into law. Plaintiffs, knowing that the COVID-19 crisis would severely impact their
respective clients’ businesses, assisted their clients with obtaining PPP loans through a
specific Defendant.
54. Plaintiffs spent considerable time becoming familiar with the Act, and the related
SBA Regulations, and, 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.
55. In or about April 2020, Plaintiffs, in their role as Agents, assisted their respective
clients, as Borrowers under the PPP, in the gathering and analysis of their documents, as well as
the calculation and preparation of each loan application (the “Application(s)”), and in identifying
Lenders who were processing PPP loans in the “race to the bank” environment created by the first-
come, first-served nature of the PPP.
56. Based on the SBA Regulations, Plaintiffs each understood that the only
compensation they would receive was from the mandated Agent Fees that were advanced to the
Lenders by the Federal Government for the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ benefit as part of the
statutory Lender Fees.
57. To prepare the documentation, Plaintiffs assisted their respective clients in
gathering the required information and preparing the Applications, including the following, where
applicable or necessary:
a. Loan Calculator Spreadsheet;
b. SBA Form 2483;
14
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 15 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 15 of 36
c. Addendum A: Affiliates;
d. Information on whether the applicant received an SBA Economic Injury
Disaster Loan (“EIDL”);
e. Certificate of Beneficial Ownership Interest;
f. Driver’s Licenses;
g. Articles of Incorporation or Articles of Organization;
h. 2019 IRS/State Payroll Forms;
i. 2019 Payroll Summary Report by each Employee;
j. 2019 Health Insurance Premium Paid, including each monthly statement or
year-end summary;
k. 2019 Retirement Matching Plan Paid, including each monthly statement or
year-end summary;
l. 2020 1st QTR 941 Form;
m. January 2020 Payroll Summary by Employee;
n. February 2020 Payroll Summary by Employee;
o. March 2020 Payroll Summary by Employee;
p. Health Insurance Premium Paid – January, February, and March 2020;
q. Retirement Matching Plan Paid – January, February, and March 2020;
r. Wiring Instructions; and
s. Copy of the Borrower’s most recent bank statement,
(collectively, (a) – (s) above are part of the Application).
15
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 16 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 16 of 36
58. In addition, Plaintiffs each worked to identify Lenders, such as Defendants, who
were taking Applications and funding PPP loans in order to connect their respective Borrowers to
the limited federal funds available under the PPP.
59. Plaintiffs each believed they would receive their earned Agent Fees from the
Lenders after the funding of each of their respective clients’ PPP loans as required by the
SBA Regulations.
60. Defendants did not comply with the SBA Regulations in distributing the Agent Fees
from their Lender Fees paid to them by the Federal Government under the PPP.
61. Specifically, Defendants, as Lenders under the PPP and without any legal authority
under the SBA Regulations or otherwise, refused to pay Agents such as Plaintiffs, the required
statutory Agent Fees from the fees they obtained from the Federal Government despite demand,
or the Defendants repudiated the Agent’s role and refused to pay the required Agent Fees as a
general policy.
62. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered
financial harm by: (a) being deprived of the statutorily-mandated compensation for the
professional services that they provided in connection with assisting their clients in applying for
and obtaining PPP loans, and (b) being denied by Defendants just compensation for playing the
vital role of Agents in the PPP process on behalf of the intended beneficiaries of the program, the
small- and medium-sized business owners.
Class Action Allegations
63. As noted above, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other
Agents similarly situated as a state and nationwide Class, defined below.
16
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 17 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 17 of 36
64. Plaintiffs, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4), seek
to represent a Class composed of and defined as follows:
All Agents (as that term is defined by the SBA Regulations) that facilitated
businesses in receiving a loan under the PPP, i.e., met the criteria for eligibility
and were not otherwise ineligible, between February 15, 2020, and June 30,
2020, who timely applied for a PPP loan through various Lenders and were
processed and approved for funding, and for whom the Lenders received their
Lender Fees.
65. Plaintiffs reserve the right to expand, limit, modify or amend this Class definition,
including the addition of one or more subclasses in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification, or any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts
obtained during discovery.
66. Numerosity: The Class is composed of thousands of Agents (the “Class Members”)
whose joinder in this action would be impracticable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The disposition
of their claims through this class action will benefit all Class Members, the parties, and the courts.
67. Commonality: There is a commonality in questions of law and fact affecting the
Class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). These questions of law and fact include, but are not limited
to the following:
a. Did Defendants comply with all applicable SBA Regulations in processing
Applications for PPP funds and in distributing PPP funds?;
b. Did Defendants comply with their legal obligations under the terms of the
CARES Act as a lender of the PPP funds?;
c. Did Defendants obtain Lender Fees for closing PPP loans for Borrowers
represented by Agents;
d. Did Defendants have a policy and/or practice of failing to compensate Agents
17
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 18 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 18 of 36
and pay them the required Agent Fees out of their Lender Fees for their work
in facilitating PPP loans to the detriment of the Class?;
e. Did Defendants prioritize their Lender Fees over abiding by the CARES Act
and PPP specifications?;
f. Did Defendants’ conduct in not paying the Agent Fees out of the Lender Fees
they received constitute a conversion of the Agent Fees owed to the Plaintiffs
and the Class?;
g. Did Defendants possess exclusive knowledge of material facts concerning the
Application process, i.e., that the Agents would not receive the required
compensation, i.e., Agent Fees, when assisting applicants with the PPP
loan process?;
h. Did Defendants actively conceal a material fact or facts from the Plaintiffs and
the Class Members, i.e., that the Agent was not going to receive its earned
Agent Fees when assisting with the Applications?;
i. Whether Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, was intentional and knowing?;
j. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled to damages and/or
restitution, and if so, what is the amount of revenues and/or profits Defendants
received and/or was lost by Plaintiffs and the Class Members as a result of the
conduct alleged herein?;
k. Whether Defendants are likely to continue to mislead the public and the Class
Members and continue to violate SBA Regulations regarding paying Agents
their earned fees under the CARES Act?;
l. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members, after discovery, have proved
sufficient facts to entitle them to an award of punitive damages?; and
m. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class Members are also entitled to an award of pre-
judgment interest and costs of suit?
18
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 19 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 19 of 36
68. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of, and are not antagonistic to, the claims
of all Class Members in that the claims for relief are based on the same legal principles and theories
arising from the same actions and omissions of the Defendants affecting all Class Members. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs and the Class Members have all been harmed by Defendants’
unfair and unlawful PPP loan application and funding practices, as alleged herein, and all Class
Members were injured in the same way by the acts and omissions of the Defendants. The factual
and legal basis of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiffs and each Class Member as a result of
Defendants’ actions as described herein are defined by substantively identical provisions in the
SBA Regulations under the CARES Act. Defendants’ purported defenses to the claims, both legal
and factual, are typical of the defenses they would try to raise in response to the Class’s claims.
69. Adequacy: Plaintiffs each are adequate representatives of the Class because they
are members of the Class, and Plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with the interests of the other
Class Members that Plaintiffs seek to represent. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs will fairly
and adequately represent and protect the interest of the other Class Members. Plaintiffs each have
retained counsel with substantial experience in litigating complex cases, including consumer fraud
and class actions. Both Plaintiffs and their counsel will vigorously prosecute this action on behalf
of the Class and have the financial ability to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any
interest adverse to other Class Members.
70. Predominance: The above questions of law and fact predominate over individual
questions affecting the Class Members. Defendants’ conduct described in this Complaint all stems
from ignoring their obligations under the SBA Regulations setting forth the policy and procedures
for payment of Agent Fees that are readily calculable from Defendants’ records and other Class-
wide evidence. Class Members do not have an interest in pursuing separate individual actions
against Defendants as the amount of each Class Member’s claim is relatively small compared to
the expense and burden of individual prosecution. The management of this action as a class action
will not present any likely difficulties. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, it would
be desirable to concentrate the litigation of all Class Members’ claims in a single action. See Fed.
19
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 20 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 20 of 36
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
71. Superiority: In engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants have acted
and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and other Class Members. Such
conduct requires the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of
conduct toward Class Members. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair
and efficient adjudication of Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ claims. Few, if any, Class
Members could afford to seek legal redress of the wrongs complained of herein on an individual
basis. Absent a class action, Class Members and the general public would not likely recover, or
have the chance to recover, damages or restitution, and Defendants would be permitted to retain
the fruits of their misdeeds. Any difficulties that might occur in the management of this proposed
class action are insubstantial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1)(A).
72. Ascertainability: Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Defendants keep extensive
electronic records of their loan Applications through, inter alia, computerized loan application
systems, and federally-mandated record-keeping practices. Defendants have one or more
database(s) through which all of the Borrowers may be identified and ascertained, and through it
maintains contact information, including email and mailing addresses. From this information, the
existence of the Class Members (i.e., the Agent for the Borrower) can be determined, and
thereafter, notice of this action can be disseminated in accordance with due process requirements.
73. Neither Plaintiffs nor the Class have previously litigated the claims asserted in
this Complaint.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Against Defendants Amerant, Celtic, and First Citizens)
74. Plaintiff Full Compliance incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if
the same were fully alleged herein.
75. Plaintiff Full Compliance asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and other
Class Members as Agents defined by the SBA Regulations.
20
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 21 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 21 of 36
76. Plaintiff Full Compliance, as an Agent under the PPP, assisted its clients with
submitting the Applications to obtain PPP loans under the CARES Act and/or connected the
Borrower client to the Defendants which led to a funded PPP loan. Defendants failed to pay Agent
Fees owed to Plaintiff Full Compliance as required by SBA Regulations, despite having been paid
their own Lender Fees under the PPP. Instead, Defendants kept all of the origination and
processing fees for themselves, in direct violation of the SBA Regulations.
77. A bona fide adverse interest exists between Plaintiff Full Compliance and
Defendants with respect to Plaintiff Full Compliance’s and the Class Members’ right to the Agent
Fees owed by Defendants, and, upon information and belief, Defendants either deny that any Agent
Fees are owed to Plaintiff Full Compliance or claim that only a percentage of the Agent Fees
are owed.
78. Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members have a legally protectable interest
under the SBA Regulations in that they are entitled to their mandated Agent Fees in connection
with the professional services rendered to their clients in preparing and submitting Applications
for PPP funds.
79. Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay the
mandated Agent Fees to Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members as required under the
SBA Regulations.
80. Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members seek a declaration that
Defendants are required under the SBA Regulations to pay the Agent Fees at the statutory amount
on each loan funded involving an Agent.
21
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 22 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 22 of 36
COUNT II
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Against Defendants Cambridge, CIBC, First Horizon,
Grove Bank, Interamerican, Regions,
Live Oak, Ocean Bank, Paradise, Professional,
Truist, Valley, and Wells Fargo)
81. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations
as if the same were fully alleged herein.
82. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and
other Class Members as Agents defined by the SBA Regulations.
83. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez, as an Agent under the PPP, assisted its clients with
submitting the Applications to obtain PPP loans under the CARES Act and/or connected the
Borrower client to the Defendants which led to a funded PPP loan. Defendants failed to pay
Agent Fees owed to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez as required by SBA Regulations, despite
having been paid their own Lender Fees under the PPP. Instead, Defendants kept all of the
origination and processing fees for themselves, in direct violation of the SBA Regulations.
84. A bona fide adverse interest exists between Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and
Defendants with respect to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members’ right to the
Agent Fees owed by Defendants, and, upon information and belief, Defendants either deny that
any Agent Fees are owed to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez or claim that only a percentage of the
Agent Fees are owed.
85. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members have a legally protectable
interest under the SBA Regulations in that they are entitled to their mandated Agent Fees in
connection with the professional services rendered to their clients in preparing and submitting
Applications for PPP funds.
22
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 23 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 23 of 36
86. Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay the
mandated Agent Fees to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members as required under
the SBA Regulations.
87. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members seek a declaration in that
Defendants are required under the SBA Regulations to pay the Agent Fees at the statutory amount
on each loan funded involving an Agent.
COUNT III
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(Against Defendants BofA, BankUnited,
Chase, and TD)
88. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if the same were
fully alleged herein.
89. Plaintiffs both assert this cause of action on behalf of themselves and other Class
Members as Agents defined by the SBA Regulations.
90. Plaintiffs, as Agents under the PPP, assisted their respective clients with submitting
the Applications to obtain PPP loans under the CARES Act and/or connected the Borrower clients
to the Defendants which led to funded PPP loans. Defendants failed to pay Agent Fees owed to
Plaintiffs as required by SBA Regulations, despite having been paid their own Lender Fees under
the PPP. Instead, Defendants kept all of the origination and processing fees for themselves, in
direct violation of the SBA Regulations.
91. A bona fide adverse interest exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants with respect
to Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ right to the Agent Fees owed by Defendants, and, upon
information and belief, Defendants either deny that any Agent Fees are owed to Plaintiffs or claim
that only a percentage of the Agent Fees are owed.
23
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 24 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 24 of 36
92. Plaintiffs and the Class Members have a legally protectable interest under the SBA
Regulations in that they are entitled to their mandated Agent Fees in connection with the
professional services rendered to their clients in preparing and submitting Applications for
PPP funds.
93. Defendants have failed and refused, and continue to fail and refuse, to pay the
mandated Agent Fees to Plaintiffs and the Class Members as required under the SBA Regulations.
94. Plaintiffs and the Class Members seek a declaration that Defendants are required
under the SBA Regulations to pay the Agent Fees at the statutory amount on each loan funded
involving an Agent.
COUNT IV
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Defendants Amerant, Celtic, and First Citizens)
95. Plaintiff Full Compliance incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if
the same were fully alleged herein.
96. Plaintiff Full Compliance asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and other
Class Members as Agents.
97. Defendants have been, and continue to be, unjustly enriched, to the detriment and
at the expense of Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members as a result of Defendants’
wrongful withholding of Agent Fees from the Lender Fees they received, and are now owed to
Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class.
98. Defendants have been unjustly benefitted through the unlawful and wrongful
retention of monies due to the Agents (i.e., the Agent Fees) as a result of the funding of the PPP
loans, and Defendants’ receipt of their Lender Fees under the same program. Specifically, Plaintiff
Full Compliance and the Class Members provided services to the Borrowers to help each Borrower
24
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 25 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 25 of 36
obtain a PPP loan. Defendants then retained for their benefit Agent Fees that Plaintiff Full
Compliance and the Class were entitled to be paid for work performed, and continue to benefit to
the detriment and at the expense of Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members.
99. Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members chose specific Defendants to
place the Borrowers and the PPP Loans with the reasonable expectation of being paid as an Agent
under the SBA Regulations.
100. Defendants are intentionally retaining the monies allocated by the Federal
Government for Agent Fees and paid to Defendants as part of their Lender Fees, despite knowing
that said monies are owed to Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members.
101. Defendants refuse to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of, the
monies owed to Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members and are choosing to retain the
Agent Fees for themselves in direct violation of SBA regulations.
102. It is against equity and good conscience that Defendants be permitted to retain the
benefits conferred upon them by Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members.
103. Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members respectfully request this Court to
order Defendants to disgorge the amount of the Agent Fees which Defendants wrongfully
misappropriated from Plaintiff Full Compliance and all Class Members, enjoin Defendants from
continuing the improper acts as discussed herein, and award Plaintiff Full Compliance and all
Class Members such other damages and relief that this Court deems just and proper.
25
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 26 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 26 of 36
COUNT V
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Defendants Cambridge, CIBC, First Horizon,
Grove Bank, Interamerican, Regions,
Live Oak, Ocean Bank, Paradise, Professional,
Truist, Valley, and Wells Fargo)
104. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations
as if the same were fully alleged herein.
105. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez asserts this cause of action on behalf of itself and
other Class Members as Agents.
106. Defendants have been, and continue to be, unjustly enriched, to the detriment and
at the expense of Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members as a result of Defendants’
wrongful withholding of Agent Fees from the Lender Fees they received, and are now owed to
Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class.
107. Defendants have been unjustly benefitted through the unlawful and wrongful
retention of monies due to the Agents (i.e., the Agent Fees) as a result of the funding of the PPP
loans, and Defendants’ receipt of their Lender Fees under the same program. Specifically, Plaintiff
Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members provided services to the Borrowers to help each
Borrower obtain a PPP loan. Defendants then retained for their benefit Agent Fees that Plaintiff
Zamora & Hernandez and the Class were entitled to be paid for work performed, and continue to
benefit to the detriment and at the expense of Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the
Class Members.
108. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members chose specific Defendants
to place the Borrowers and the PPP Loans with the reasonable expectation of being paid as an
Agent under the SBA Regulations.
26
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 27 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 27 of 36
109. Defendants are intentionally retaining the monies allocated by the Federal
Government for Agent Fees and paid to Defendants as part of their Lender Fees, despite knowing
that said monies are owed to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members.
110. Defendants refuse to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of, the
monies owed to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members and are choosing to retain
the Agent Fees for themselves in direct violation of SBA regulations.
111. It is against equity and good conscience that Defendants be permitted to retain the
benefits conferred upon them by Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members.
112. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members respectfully request this
Court to order Defendants to disgorge the amount of the Agent Fees which Defendants wrongfully
misappropriated from Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and all Class Members, enjoin Defendants
from continuing the improper acts as discussed herein, and award Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez
and all Class Members such other damages and relief that this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Defendants BofA, BankUnited,
Chase, and TD)
113. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if the same were
fully alleged herein.
114. Plaintiffs both assert this cause of action on behalf of themselves and other Class
Members as Agents.
115. Defendants have been, and continue to be, unjustly enriched, to the detriment and
at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class Members as a result of Defendants’ wrongful withholding
of Agent Fees from the Lender Fees they received, and are now owed to Plaintiffs and the Class.
27
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 28 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 28 of 36
116. Defendants have been unjustly benefitted through the unlawful and wrongful
retention of monies due to the Agents (i.e., the Agent Fees) as a result of the funding of the PPP
loans, and Defendants’ receipt of their Lender Fees under the same program. Specifically,
Plaintiffs and the Class Members provided services to their respective Borrowers to help each
Borrower obtain a PPP loan. Defendants then retained for their benefit Agent Fees that Plaintiffs
and the Class were entitled to be paid for work performed, and continue to benefit to the detriment
and at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
117. Plaintiffs and the Class Members chose specific Defendants to place the Borrowers
and the PPP Loans with the reasonable expectation of being paid as an Agent under the
SBA Regulations.
118. Defendants are intentionally retaining the monies allocated by the Federal
Government for Agent Fees and paid to Defendants as part of their Lender Fees, despite knowing
that said monies are owed to Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
119. Defendants refuse to pay, or are willing to pay only a partial percentage of, the
monies owed to Plaintiffs and the Class Members and are choosing to retain the Agent Fees for
themselves in direct violation of SBA regulations.
120. It is against equity and good conscience that Defendants be permitted to retain the
benefits conferred upon them by Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
121. Plaintiffs and the Class Members respectfully request this Court to order
Defendants to disgorge the amount of the Agent Fees which Defendants wrongfully
misappropriated from Plaintiffs and all Class Members, enjoin Defendants from continuing the
improper acts as discussed herein, and award Plaintiffs and all Class Members such other damages
and relief that this Court deems just and proper.
28
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 29 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 29 of 36
COUNT VII
CONVERSION
(Against Defendants Amerant, Celtic, and First Citizens)
122. Plaintiff Full Compliance incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if
the same were fully alleged herein.
123. Plaintiff Full Compliance and the other Class Members have an immediate right to
the mandatory and identifiable Agent Fees owed to them under the SBA Regulations.
124. Under the PPP, the Agent cannot look to the Treasury for direct payment of their
Agent Fees. Instead, the Agent Fees are paid to the Lender as part of the Lender Fees, and the
Lender is obligated to pay the Agent Fees over to the Agent.
125. As alleged herein, the Agent Fees were paid to the Lenders as part of the Lender
Fees paid to each Defendant for each Borrower’s loan. The Lender Fees were placed in the
Defendants’ custody to be used to pay Plaintiff Full Compliance and the other Class Members the
Agent Fees they had earned.
126. Defendants are obligated to pay Plaintiff Full Compliance and other Class Members
the mandatory Agent Fees according to the SBA Regulations.
127. Defendants willfully interfered with the rights of Plaintiff Full Compliance and the
other Class Members, without legal justification, when they misappropriated and retained the
monies paid to Defendants as part of their Lender Fees, and allocated by Treasury for the Agent
Fees due upon the funding of each of Plaintiff Full Compliance’s and the other Class Members’
clients’ PPP loans.
128. Defendants deprived Plaintiff Full Compliance and the other Class Members of the
ownership, possession, and control of the Agent Fees and misappropriated them for their benefit
through their unauthorized dominion over the Agent Fees.
29
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 30 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 30 of 36
129. At the time they unlawfully retained the Agent Fees, Defendants knew or should
have known that the Agent Fees paid to them as part of their Lender Fees were owed to Plaintiff
Full Compliance and the other Class Members.
130. Defendants’ conduct manifests a willful or reckless disregard of Plaintiff Full
Compliance’s and the Class Members’ right of possession to the monies owed to them.
131. Defendants’ improper acts or practices of refusing to pay Plaintiff Full Compliance
and the other Class Members the mandated Agent Fees are the proximate cause of the damages
sustained by Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members.
132. Plaintiff Full Compliance and the Class Members respectfully request that this
Court cause Defendants to disgorge the amount of the Agent Fees wrongfully misappropriated and
converted by Defendants to Plaintiff Full Compliance and all Class Members, enjoin Defendants
from continuing the improper acts as discussed herein, and award Plaintiff Full Compliance and
all Class Members compensatory damages and such other damages and relief that this Court deems
just and proper.
COUNT VIII
CONVERSION
(Against Defendants Cambridge, CIBC, First Horizon,
Grove Bank, Interamerican, Regions,
Live Oak, Ocean Bank, Paradise, Professional,
Truist, Valley, and Wells Fargo)
133. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations
as if the same were fully alleged herein.
134. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the other Class Members have an immediate
right to the mandatory and identifiable Agent Fees owed to them under the SBA Regulations.
30
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 31 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 31 of 36
135. Under the PPP, the Agent cannot look to the Treasury for direct payment of their
Agent Fees. Instead, the Agent Fees are paid to the Lender as part of the Lender Fees, and the
Lender is obligated to pay the Agent Fees over to the Agent.
136. As alleged herein, the Agent Fees were paid to the Lenders as part of the Lender
Fees paid to each Defendant for each Borrower’s loan. The Lender Fees were placed in the
Defendants’ custody to be used to pay Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the other Class Members
the Agent Fees they had earned.
137. Defendants are obligated to pay Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and other Class
Members the mandatory Agent Fees according to the SBA Regulations.
138. Defendants willfully interfered with the rights of Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez
and the other Class Members, without legal justification, when they misappropriated and retained
the monies paid to Defendants as part of their Lender Fees, and allocated by Treasury for the Agent
Fees due upon the funding of each of Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez’s and the other Class
Members’ clients’ PPP loans.
139. Defendants deprived Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the other Class Members
of the ownership, possession, and control of the Agent Fees and misappropriated them for their
benefit through their unauthorized dominion over the Agent Fees.
140. At the time they unlawfully retained the Agent Fees, Defendants knew or should
have known that the Agent Fees paid to them as part of their Lender Fees were owed to Plaintiff
Zamora & Hernandez and the other Class Members.
141. Defendants’ conduct manifests a willful or reckless disregard of Plaintiff Zamora
& Hernandez’s and the Class Members’ right of possession to the monies owed to them.
31
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 32 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 32 of 36
142. Defendants’ improper acts or practices of refusing to pay Plaintiff Zamora &
Hernandez and the other Class Members the mandated Agent Fees are the proximate cause of the
damages sustained by Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members.
143. Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and the Class Members respectfully request that this
Court cause Defendants to disgorge the amount of the Agent Fees wrongfully misappropriated and
converted by Defendants to Plaintiff Zamora & Hernandez and all Class Members, enjoin
Defendants from continuing the improper acts as discussed herein, and award Plaintiff Zamora &
Hernandez and all Class Members compensatory damages and such other damages and relief that
this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT IX
CONVERSION
(Against Defendants BofA, BankUnited,
Chase, and TD)
144. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing allegations as if the same were
fully alleged herein.
145. Plaintiffs and the other Class Members have an immediate right to the mandatory
and identifiable Agent Fees owed to them under the SBA Regulations.
146. Under the PPP, the Agent cannot look to the Treasury for direct payment of their
Agent Fees. Instead, the Agent Fees are paid to the Lender as part of the Lender Fees, and the
Lender is obligated to pay the Agent Fees over to the Agent.
147. As alleged herein, the Agent Fees were paid to the Lenders as part of the Lender
Fees paid to each Defendant for each Borrower’s loan. The Lender Fees were placed in the
Defendants’ custody to be used to pay Plaintiffs and the other Class Members the Agent Fees they
had earned.
32
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 33 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 33 of 36
148. Defendants are obligated to pay Plaintiffs and other Class Members the mandatory
Agent Fees according to the SBA Regulations.
149. Defendants willfully interfered with the rights of Plaintiffs and the other Class
Members, without legal justification, when they misappropriated and retained the monies paid to
Defendants as part of their Lender Fees, and allocated by Treasury for the Agent Fees due upon
the funding of each of Plaintiffs’ and the other Class Members’ clients’ PPP loans.
150. Defendants deprived Plaintiffs and the other Class Members of the ownership,
possession, and control of the Agent Fees and misappropriated them for their benefit through their
unauthorized dominion over the Agent Fees.
151. At the time they unlawfully retained the Agent Fees, Defendants knew or should
have known that the Agent Fees paid to them as part of their Lender Fees were owed to Plaintiffs
and the other Class Members.
152. Defendants’ conduct manifests a willful or reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ and the
Class Members’ right of possession to the monies owed to them.
153. Defendants’ improper acts or practices of refusing to pay Plaintiffs and the other
Class Members the mandated Agent Fees are the proximate cause of the damages sustained by
Plaintiffs and the Class Members.
154. Plaintiffs and the Class Members respectfully request that this Court cause
Defendants to disgorge the amount of the Agent Fees wrongfully misappropriated and converted
by Defendants to Plaintiffs and all Class Members, enjoin Defendants from continuing the
improper acts as discussed herein, and award Plaintiffs and all Class Members compensatory
damages and such other damages and relief that this Court deems just and proper.
33
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 34 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 34 of 36
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, pray for the
following relief:
A. An Order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives for the Class, and appointing Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class counsel
for the Class;
B. An Order declaring Defendants’ actions to be unlawful;
C. An Order declaring that Defendants owe Plaintiffs and the Class Members the
Agent Fees under theories of conversion and unjust enrichment;
D. An award of all recoverable compensatory, statutory, and other damages sustained
by Plaintiffs and the Class Members, as well as equitable relief including
disgorgement and enjoining Defendants from continuing the improper acts as
identified herein, and all other available relief under applicable law;
E. An award of punitive damages if such facts to support such damages are developed
in discovery and the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend;
F. Costs related to bringing this action;
G. Pre and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
such further relief at law or in equity that this Court deems just and proper.
34
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 35 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 35 of 36
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs, individually, and on behalf of the Class Members, hereby demand a trial by jury
on all claims and issues so triable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(a).
Dated: June 5, 2020
ZUMPANO PATRICIOS & POPOK, PLLC
/s/ Michael S. Popok
Michael S. Popok, Esq. (Florida Bar No. 44131)
Mitchell G. Mandell, Esq. (Pro Hac Vice
Application to be filed)
417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 381-9999
Facsimile: (212) 320-0332
And,
ZUMPANO PATRICIOS, P.A.
312 Minorca Avenue
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 444-5565
Facsimile: (305) 444-8588
GERAGOS & GERAGOS, PC
Mark Geragos, Esq.
Ben Meiselas, Esq.
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
GRAYLAW GROUP, INC.
Michael E. Adler, Esq.
26500 Agoura Road, #102-127
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 532-2833
Facsimile: (818) 532-2834
35
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 150-2 onFiled
1 Entered FLSD06/17/20 Page 36 ofPage
Docket 06/05/2020 40 36 of 36
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
Harmeet K. Dhillon, Esq.
Nitoj P. Singh, Esq.
177 Post St., Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
36
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017 150-2
1-1 COVER
CIVIL Filed
Entered on
SHEET 06/17/20
FLSD Page 37 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 1 of 2
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.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below.
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS FULL COMPLIANCE, LLC and ZAMORA & DEFENDANTS AMERANT BANK, et al.,
HERNANDEZ, PLLC, indivd., and o/b/o Class
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Miami-Dade County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Miami-Dade 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)
Zumpano Patricios & Popok, PLLC
Michael Popok
(d)Zumpano Patricios
Check County & Popok,
Where Action Arose:LLC ✔ MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS
417 Fifth Avenue Suite 826
II.New York,
BASIS OFNY 10016
JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff)
(212)542-2564 (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ✔ 4 ✔4
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government ✔4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 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
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729 (a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights ✘ 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated 460 Deportation
New Drug Application
Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 840 Trademark 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) 490 Cable/Sat TV
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 850 Securities/Commodities/
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 891 Agricultural Acts
362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation 893 Environmental Matters
Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 895 Freedom of Information
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) 899 Administrative Procedure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 871 IRS—Third Party 26 Act/Review or Appeal of
Sentence USC 7609
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Other: Agency Decision
Accommodations
245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 530 General IMMIGRATION 950 Constitutionality of State
Statutes
290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
448 Education 555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee –
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
✔ 1 Original 2 Removed 3 Re-filed 4 Reinstated 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 7 Appeal to 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding from State (See VI or another district Litigation
District Judge Litigation 9 Remanded from
Appellate Court
Court below) Reopened (specify) Transfer
from Magistrate – Direct
Judgment File
VI. RELATED/ (See instructions): a) Re-filed Case YES NO b) Related Cases YES NO
RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE: DOCKET NUMBER:
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VII. CAUSE OF ACTION 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), Class Action Fairness Act, Class Action Declaratory Relief
LENGTH OF TRIAL via days estimated (for both sides to try entire case)
VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
✔ UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT:
JURY DEMAND: ✔ Yes No
ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE
Save As... Print Reset
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 1-1 150-2 Filed
Entered on 06/17/20
FLSD Page 38 of 40
Docket 06/05/2020 Page 2 of 2
JS 44 (Rev. 06/17) FLSD Revised 06/01/2017
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)”.
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.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 1 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; 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. 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.
V. 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.
Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI.
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. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this
box is checked, do not check (5) above.
Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge’s decision.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court.
VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judges name for such cases.
VII. 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
VIII. 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 dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) 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.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 1-21 150-2
Entered Filed 06/17/20
on FLSD Docket Page 39 of 40Page 1 of 2
06/05/2020
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
SouthernDistrict
__________ Districtof
of__________
Florida
FULL COMPLIANCE, LLC and ZAMORA & )
HERNANDEZ, PLLC, on behalf of a class of similarly )
situated businesses and individuals, )
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No.
)
AMERANT BANK, et al., )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
c/o Corporation Service Company
1201 HAYS STREET
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301-2525
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Michael S. Popok
Zumpano Patricios & Popok, PLLC
417 Fifth Avenue, Suite 826
New York, NY 10016
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk
Case MDL No. 2950
Case 1:20-cv-22339-XXXX Document
Document 1-21 150-2
Entered Filed 06/17/20
on FLSD Docket Page 40 of 40Page 2 of 2
06/05/2020
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date) .
’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)
on (date) ; or
’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or
’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is
designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date) ; or
’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or
’ Other (specify):
.
My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 .
I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.
Date:
Server’s signature
Printed name and title
Server’s address
Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:
Print Save As... Reset
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.jpml.1161172.150.2.pdf
- Size
- 1,356,727 bytes
- SHA-256
- f6bee1f72f8c3ae847e3f3d2fd93bca9cd6e3fc987ee1d7c4f6d8fee3a69bd6f
- Original
- No public link identified.