Court filing

Exhibit A (Complaint/docket - 5:20-cv-01337 (C.D. Cal.)) — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 49.3)

Summary

Exhibit A to Document 49-3, filed July 14, 2020 in MDL No. 2954, reproducing a complaint and docket report in Bobby Borisov v. Wells Fargo and Company, et al., No. 5:20-cv-01337-JGB-SHK. The complaint, filed pro se and dated May 14, 2020, alleges that the plaintiff's Paycheck Protection Program application submitted through Wells Fargo was not timely or properly processed and that the bank prioritized larger loan applications and existing customers. It describes the CARES Act, Pub. L. 116-136, signed March 27, 2020, the $349 billion appropriated, and lender processing fees set by the United States Treasury. It pleads causes of action for 40 U.S. Code §123 and unjust enrichment, demands a jury trial and seeks damages of not less than $3,000,000, and the 10-page exhibit ends with a docket report for the case.

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. 2954 Document 49-3 Filed 07/14/20 Page1of10

Exhibit A
10

||Case 5:fase-ViRis Nosh Dosunieeht!9-SFilcdilee/07/24/2pagPaae 2 Page ID #:4

FILED
Bobby Borisov
13596 Hatchet Place 2820 JUL -2 AMIO: @6
Fontana, CA 92336 i oby ne aieema oe
310-498-4989 “CENTRAL DIST OF CHE
RIVERSIDE

Bobby @bbiholdings.com

Plaintiff in Pro Se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BOBBY BORISOV, AN INDIVIDUAL EDCV 2 Q- 0 { 3 34 7 “J ( G/

Plaintiff,

vs. COMPLAINT

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY: WELLS| DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
FARGO BANK, N.A.; and Does | through 10,
inclusive

Defendants.

Plaintiff, Bobby Borisov (‘Plaintiff’), alleges the following against Defendant Wells
Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Does | through 10, inclusive (collectively,
“Defendants”), and in support thereof, avers as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action because the parties are
citizens of different counties and the controversy exceeds the value of $75,000.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they transact a
substantial amount of business in this state.

3. Venue is proper int his judicial district because a substantial amount of the

| FEE PAID

COMPLAINT

transactions at issue occurred in this district.

Case 5:fa8¢e-ViRis Noctis Doseniaeht?-SFilddileq/07/4d/2PagPage B OP4ge ID #:2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff, BOBBY BORISOV, is an individual and a small business owner
residing in Fontana, California. Plaintiff operates a factory in the city of Riverside, California,
called BB Encore.

5; Because Plaintiff satisfied the eligibility requirements for the assistance provided
by the PPP loans, Plaintiff submitted an application through Wells Fargo. However, due to
Wells Fargo’s wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, Plaintiff's loan application was not timely or
properly processed, causing the loan to be denied and jeopardizing Plaintiff's business and
ultimately causing its collapse.

6. Defendant WELLS FARGO & COMPANY is a California Corporation, whose
primary place of business is 420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104.

é i Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., is a bank and the main subsidiary of
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, also headquartered at 420 Montgomery Street San Francisco,
CA 94104.

8. Plaintiff does not know the true names and legal capacities of the Defendants sued
herein as Does | through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious
names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges, that each of the Defendants
designated herein as Does, are legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings
herein referred and for causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged. Plaintiff will seek
leave of Court to amend his Complaint to allege the true names and/or capacities of such
fictitiously named Defendants once ascertained.

INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS

9. Wells Fargo, fresh on the heels of being forced to pay $3 billion to resolve an
egregious “fake account” scandal designed by the senior executives of the Company to maximize
profits at the expense of innocent consumers, has engaged in yet another scam motivated by the
Company’s endless greed. This time the wrongful conduct is equally despicable and unlawful —

manipulating the CARES Act Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).

2
COMPLAINT

|Case 5:28¢-NIR3 No osSHk Dosumreht?-3Filcdiled/07/4d/2PagPaae 4 OP4Ge ID #:3

10. Wells Fargo’s present misconduct is eerily similar to its previous alleged offenses
as they both involve manipulation the sequence of transactions or applications in order to
maximize its profits.

EE, On March 27, 2020, the President of the United States signed the Coronavirus Aid
Relief and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act) (Pub. L. 116-136) into law, providing relief
to the stock market, banks and ostensibly to small businesses. However, while the government
can, on a moment’s notice, create and distribute money to prop up capital markets and large
banking institutions through the federal reserve, no such mechanism exists to provide assistance
to small businesses.

12. Thus, as part of the CARES Act, Congress appropriated over $340 billion in
funds to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”), so that small business could obtain loans ta
cover payroll and avoid massive layoffs attendant to the COVID-19 crisis through existing
programs which require banks to act as intermediaries. The $349 billion in aid is commonly
known as the Payroll Protection Act.

13. | The CARES Act gave the SBA rulemaking authority as to the administration and
distribution of PPP loans which began to be dispersed on April 3, 2020.

14. | On April 16, 2020 the SBA reported that the entirety of the $349 billion
appropriated had been disposed of, less than two weeks after the funds became available.

15. | Defendant Wells Fargo is one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States with over $1.9 trillion in assets and over 15 million customers, including businesses large
and small.

16. On April 2, 2020, the SBA announced that it would begin accepting PPP
Applications on April 3, 2020.

17. Soon thereafter, Wells Fargo initially limited applications to those business who
had a pre-existing lending relationship with the Company and/or prioritized loan applications
from larger companies seeking higher loan amounts because processing those applications first

generated larger loan origination fees for the institution.

3
COMPLAINT

|Case 5:fa8e-ViRis Na GesHk DosumPeht?-SFiledilee/O7/24/2BagP age ~ OPAQe ID #:4

18. | The next statement made by Wells Fargo expressed that it “will expand its
participation in the Paycheck Protection Program and offer loans to a broader set of its small
business and nonprofit customers subject to the terms of the program” was an affirmative
representation that Wells Fargo would focus its attention on “its small business and nonprofit
customers” and would conform its conduct to the “terms of the program” including processing
applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

19. Wells Fargo desired to participate in the PPP program because the program
offered it large commissions of between 1-5% of the loan amount. This represented a very
attractive opportunity for Wells Fargo since the loans were risk-free due to the fact that they are
guaranteed by the SBA and the federal government. The United States Treasury stated the
following when rolling out the PPP:

a. “Are these loans guaranteed by the SBA? Yes, the SBA guarantees 100% of the
outstanding balance, and that guarantee is backed by the full faith and credit of the United
States.” (See United States Treasury, “PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM
INFORMATION SHEET FOR LENDERS” available at
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/PPP%20Lender%20Information%20Fact%20Sheet.p
df’)

20. | The commission of 1-5% of the loan amount was calculated according to the
following schedule given to lenders by the United States Treasury
a. How will lenders be compensated? Processing fees will be based on the balance

of the financing outstanding at the time of final disbursement. SBA will pay lenders fees for

processing PPP loans in the following amounts:
° Five (5) percent for loans of not more than $350,000;
° Three (3) percent for loans of more than $350,000 and less than $2,000,000; and
® One (1) percent for loans of at least $2,000,000.
21. Smaller loans resulted in smaller commissions for Wells Fargo (the percentage of

the commission for smaller loan amounts was nominally greater than that for higher loan

amounts for the very reason that a higher absolute commission is earned on higher loan

4
COMPLAINT

|Case 5:8a8¢e-ViRis No Gish Dosuneeht'?-SFildaller/07/44/2B agPsas 6 OPaQe ID #:5

amounts). In addition to the fact that smaller loans resulted in smaller commissions, Wells Fargo
was aware that small loans required a substantial larger amount of work to process.

22. The result of Wells Fargo’s conduct was that small and minority-owned business,
those form whom the PPP program was designed for, were shut out from the loans.

23. Wells Fargo failed to disclose that it was only favoring its existing big customers
with pre-existing lending relationships with the Company, and that it was processing the PPP
applications it received in such a manner as to maximize its commissions with the least amount
of work in order to make the bank the most money.

24. | Had Wells Fargo complied with the law, small businesses such as Plaintiff's
could have submitted their PPP applications to other financial institutions that were processing
applications on a first-come, first-served basis.

25. Plaintiff registered with Wells Fargo on April 7, 2020 after he was unable to
register sooner due to the lack of communication from the institution that the link was live on
April 2, 2020.

26. | When Plaintiff attempted to register on April 5, 2020, he was told the link had
gone live on April 2, 2020 and had since been down due to too many applications flooding the
site. Plaintiff was finally able to register on April 7, 2020.

27. After the registering and filling out a form that explained why he was interested in
a PPP loan he was able to submit an application on April 15, 2020.

28. On May 7, 2020 Plaintiff received an email that they required more documents
which he then submitted and has since had no response.

29. Plaintiff, being a small business owner, was not knowledgeable about the PPP
requirements or the additional required documentation.

30. It is Plaintiff's position that Wells Fargo manipulated the process of the loans
which directly affected small businesses and negated the much-needed help that the PPP loans
were created for in the first place.

CAUSES OF ACTION
For 40 U.S. Code §123

)
COMPLAINT

|Case 5:fa8¢e-ViRis No Gi sHk Dosuneeht?-Srildaller/07/24/2B agPegs 7 OPaQe ID #:6

31. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as iff
fully set forth herein.

32. Defendants were obligated to inform Plaintiff of all the information possessed by
them that was relevant to Plaintiff's interest.

33. In addition, once Defendants communicated certain facts to Plaintiff, they were
required to disclose additional facts necessary to avoid misleading Plaintiff.

34. At the same time, Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiff that Wells Fargo did
not intend to fulfill its promises, did not intend to adhere to the PPP regulations did not intend to
process PPP loans on a first-come, first-served basis, and intended to prioritize higher value
loans and/or “more important” customers.

35. | Asaresult of Wells Fargo’s unfair business practices and concealment of these
material facts, Plaintiff's business that was entitled and could have received much needed
assistance to keep them open and providing to the economy, is now forced to close.

For Unjust Enrichment

36. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth above as iff
fully set forth herein.

37. By their wrongful acts and omissions, Defendants were unjustly enriched at the
expense of, and to the detriment of Plaintiff.

During these uncertain times, Defendants received unlawful commissions or profits
relating to the PPP loan program as a result of prioritizing higher dollar loan applications and by
failing to adhere to their own representations and the regulations governing the PPP loan
program.

38. Plaintiff was harmed and his business affected irreparably due to the mishandling
of his application which led to the PPP loan not coming through to assist him.

39. Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court mandating disgorgement of the unjust
enrichment received by each defendant.

///
/I//

6
COMPLAINT

|[Case 5:28e-WRis Na GesHk DoeumAeht!?2-3Filcdllep/O2/46/2BagP age B OP&Qe ID #:7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

Against all Defendants:

l. For an order declaring Defendants’ actions to be unlawful;
pa For declaratory and equitable relief to Plaintiff;
3. For an award of all recoverable compensatory, statutory, and other damages

sustained by Plaintiff in the amount of not less than $3,000,000;

4. For costs of suit incurred therein; and,
5; For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that are so triable.
Dated: May 14, 2020

Bobby Borisov, in Pro Se

ej
COMPLAINT

7/14/2020

Case MDL No. 2954 Documentd9-Galiforidlest@iaad20 Page 9 of 10

Query’ Reports Utilities Help Log Out
(SHKx), DISCOVERY, MANADR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Eastern Division - Riverside)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:20-cv-01337-JGB-SHK

Bobby Borisov v. Wells Fargo and Company et al Date Filed: 07/02/2020

Assigned to: Judge Jesus G. Bernal Jury Demand: Plaintiff

Referred to: Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani Nature of Suit: 190 Contract: Other
Demand: $3,000,000 Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Plaintiff

Bobby Borisov represented by Bobby Borisov

an individual

V.
Defendant

13596 Hatchet Place
Fontana, CA 92336
310-498-4989

PRO SE

Wells Fargo and Company

Defendant

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Defendant

Does

1 through 10, inclusive

Date Filed # | Docket Text

07/02/2020 1 | COMPLAINT against defendants Does, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo and
Company.Case assigned to Judge Jesus G. Bernal for all further proceedings. Discovery
referred to Magistrate Judge Shashi H. Kewalramani, (Filing fee $ 400 paid), Jury
Demanded, filed by plaintiff Bobby Borisov. (Attachments: # 1 CV71) (esa) (Entered:
07/06/2020)

07/02/2020 2 |21 DAY Summons issued re Complaint | as to defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells
Fargo and Company. (esa) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/02/2020 3 | CERTIFICATION AND NOTICE OF INTERESTED PARTIES filed by plaintiff Bobby
Borisov. (esa) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/06/2020 4 | NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Jesus G. Bernal and Magistrate Judge Shashi
H. Kewalramani. (esa) (Entered: 07/06/2020)

07/06/2020 5 | NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (esa) (Entered:

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pI?656149049711831-L_1_0-1 1/2
7/14/2020 Case MDL No. 2954 Documentet8-Salifomib@dnOa Hsti20 Page 10 of 10

| | 07/06/2020)
PACER Service Center
| Transaction Receipt |
| 07/14/2020 09:46:33
PACER Client
Login: ngsc0008 Code:
Description: Docket |Search 5:20-cv-01337-JGB-SHK End
eseription: Report Criteria: —_||date: 7/14/2020
Billable lb Cost: 0.20
Pages:

https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pI?656149049711831-L_1_0-1

2/2

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161957.49.3.pdf
Size: 1,380,676 bytes
SHA-256: 11f94fc99da2fc30cb9bd4a446006629d6c136ce235223d37bdda785093c591c
Our copy: gov.uscourts.jpml.1161957.49.3.pdf
Original: No public link identified.

Exhibit A (Complaint/docket - 5:20-cv-01337 (C.D. Cal.)) — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 49.3)

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records