Order — United States v. Jones (Dkt. 5, filed 2023-12-04)

Summary

An order by United States District Judge Debra M. Brown in United States of America v. Annekeita Jones, No. 3:23-CV-386-DMB-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, dated December 4, 2023. It recites that on October 5, 2023 the United States sued Jones under the False Claims Act and FIRREA and for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment over Paycheck Protection Program funds, alleging that she received PPP loan proceeds of $41,665.00, for which the Small Business Administration paid $5,000 in processing fees, and obtained forgiveness of $20,832.00. Finding that the proposed consent judgment is fair and consistent with the law and the nature of the litigation, the order grants the joint motion for entry of consent judgment.

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

Record facts

Full text

Case: 3:23-cv-00386-DMB-RP Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/04/23 1 of 2 PageID #: 21




                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
                               OXFORD DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                PLAINTIFF

V.                                                                     NO. 3:23-CV-386-DMB-RP

ANNEKEITA JONES                                                                       DEFENDANT


                                              ORDER

       On October 5, 2023, the United States of America filed a complaint against Annekeita

Jones in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi seeking

       to recover treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (‘FCA’),
       … civil penalties [] under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and
       Enforcement Act (‘FIRREA’), … and … money for common law or equitable
       causes of action for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment based upon Jones’
       receipt of Paycheck Protection Program (‘PPP’) funds to which she was not
       entitled.

Doc. #1 at 1. The complaint alleges that Jones, through misrepresentations, received PPP loan

proceeds totaling $41,665.00 (for which the Small Business Administration paid a total of $5,000

in processing fees to the financial institutions involved) and that Jones, through false

representations, obtained forgiveness by the SBA of $20,832.00 of the loans. Id. at 7–8.

       On November 29, 2023, a “Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment” was filed in which

the parties represent that they “have agreed to resolve [this] litigation” and “to the entry of a

Consent Judgment on the terms provided in the proposed Consent Judgment.” Doc. #4 at PageID

19. Both the joint motion and the proposed consent judgment are signed by an Assistant United

States Attorney and by Jones who appears pro se. Id.

       Generally, before entering a consent judgment, also called a consent decree, courts
       must decide whether it represents a reasonable factual and legal determination
       based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or
       stipulation. Courts must also ascertain that the settlement is fair and that it does not

       Case: 3:23-cv-00386-DMB-RP Doc #: 5 Filed: 12/04/23 2 of 2 PageID #: 22




       violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence. In assessing the propriety of
       giving judicial imprimatur to the consent decree, the court must also consider the
       nature of the litigation and the purposes to be served by the decree.

Jones v. Gusman, 296 F.R.D. 416, 428–29 (E.D. La. 2013) (cleaned up).

       The Court has reviewed the proposed consent judgment—which requires Jones to pay

$46,810.75 plus interest and a separate $402.00 filing fee—and finds that it represents a fair and

reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of record. The Court also concludes

that the proposed consent judgment does not violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence.

Finally, the proposed consent judgment is consistent with the nature of this litigation. Accordingly,

the “Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment” [4] is GRANTED. The proposed consent

judgment will be signed and entered by the Court.

       SO ORDERED, this 4th day of December, 2023.

                                                      /s/Debra M. Brown
                                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.msnd.48487.5.0.pdf

Size

127,416 bytes

SHA-256

3088d27c2a08e0f19592b5c1309cda173a71f37970aeb94eac64227ffa5c15e8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.msnd.48487.5.0.pdf

Original

archive.org