Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc. v. Carranza

Case docket

Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc. v. Small Business Administration — E.D. Wis., No. 20-C-0601

Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc. v. Small Business Administration — E.D. Wis., No. 20-C-0601 — 5 documents in the archive, dated April 24, 2020 to May 4, 2020.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin (2 filings); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (1 filing)
Docket numberNo. 20-1729 — main docket · CourtListener docket 17064447
Filings5 public filings
Filed2020-04-24 – 2020-05-04
Original PDFs5 of 5
ProfilesJovita Carranza, Steven T. Mnuchin

Case summary

Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc., Downtown Juneau Investments, LLC, Midrad, LLC and PPH Proprties I, LLC, together with J.R. Schuster, LLC in a companion case, sued the Small Business Administration, Administrator Jovita Carranza, the United States and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Nos. 20-C-0601 and 20-C-634. Each plaintiff had been found ineligible for a Paycheck Protection Program loan under 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(p), which excludes small businesses that present live performances of a prurient sexual nature from SBA business loan programs. On May 1, 2020 the court granted preliminary injunctions barring use of that regulation in PPP eligibility determinations. It denied a stay on May 4, 2020, and the Seventh Circuit temporarily stayed the injunction the same day.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs: Camelot Banquet Rooms, Inc., Downtown Juneau Investments, LLC, Midrad, LLC and PPH Proprties I, LLC; and, in the companion case, J.R. Schuster, LLC. Defendants: United States Small Business Administration; Jovita Carranza, in her official capacity as Administrator of the SBA; the United States of America; and Steven Mnuchin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Case Nos. 20-C-0601 (2:20-cv-00601-LA) and 20-C-634 (2:20-cv-00634-LA), District Judge Lynn Adelman; on appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Nos. 20-1729 and 20-1730
ProgramPaycheck Protection Program (PPP), 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36), under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136
ClaimsThat the SBA regulation 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(p), as applied to the plaintiffs through the PPP, violates their rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause
Disposition or statusPreliminary injunctions granted May 1, 2020, enjoining the SBA Administrator, the Treasury Secretary and their agents, including the SBA's lending banks, from using 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(p) and SOP 50 10 5(K) § III.A.15 in making eligibility determinations under 15 U.S.C. § 636(a)(36), and ordering guarantee authority transmitted to the plaintiffs' lenders. The district court denied a stay pending appeal on May 4, 2020 but extended the compliance deadline to 12:00 a.m. on May 6, 2020; the Seventh Circuit temporarily stayed the injunction the same day pending resolution of the government's stay motion. No final judgment is on this page
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What did the district court decide?

It granted the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary injunction, enjoined the Administrator, the Secretary and their employees, agents and representatives, including the SBA's lending banks, from using 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(p) and the associated standard operating procedure in PPP eligibility determinations, and ordered that guarantee authority be transmitted to the plaintiffs' lenders by noon on May 4, 2020 so the loans could be funded. It required no bond.

Why were the plaintiffs denied PPP loans?

The order records that each plaintiff runs a nightclub in Wisconsin featuring nude or semi-nude erotic dance entertainment, that each applied for a PPP loan, and that each plaintiff's bank, with the SBA, determined they were not eligible under a 1996 SBA regulation making small businesses that present live performances of a prurient sexual nature ineligible for any SBA business loan program.

What happened on the stay?

The district court denied the government's emergency motion to stay pending appeal on May 4, 2020, finding no likelihood of success on appeal, but amended the injunction to require transmission of guarantee authority by 12:00 a.m. on May 6, 2020. The same day the Seventh Circuit temporarily stayed the preliminary injunction pending resolution of the motion, directed the government to reserve guarantee authority in the amount previously applied for, and set a response date of May 8, 2020.

Docket

5 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 20-1729

  1. Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Preliminary Injunction — Camelot v. SBA (E.D. Wis.) (7th Cir.)Entry 25
  2. —Entries 26–27 are not in the archive
  3. Preliminary Injunction Order — Camelot Banquet Rooms v. SBA (E.D. Wis.)Entry 28
  4. —Entry 29 is not in the archive
  5. Government's Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Appeal — Camelot v. SBA (E.D. Wis.) (7th Cir.)Entry 30
  6. —Entries 31–32 are not in the archive
  7. Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Appeal — Camelot v. SBA (E.D. Wis.)Entry 33
  8. —Entries 34–38 are not in the archive
  9. undatedOrder - Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 20-cv-601Entry 39

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top