Order — United States v. Jones (Dkt. 10, N.D. Miss.)

Summary

An order by United States District Judge Debra M. Brown in United States of America v. Antionette Jones, No. 3:24-CV-271-DMB-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, dated February 13, 2025. It recites that on September 4, 2024 the United States sued Jones under the False Claims Act and for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment, alleging that she received $41,666.00 in Paycheck Protection Program loan proceeds, for which the SBA paid $5,000.00 in processing fees, and that the loans were forgiven. It notes that the Clerk entered a default against Jones on January 16, 2025. The order grants the parties' joint motion to amend and states that the proposed consent judgment will be signed and entered.

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: 3:24-cv-00271-DMB-RP Doc #: 10 Filed: 02/13/25 1 of 2 PageID #: 33




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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                            PLAINTIFF

V.                                                                               NO. 3:24-CV-271-DMB-RP

ANTIONETTE JONES                                                                                 DEFENDANT


                                                     ORDER

           On September 4, 2024, the United States of America filed a complaint against Antionette

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 … and to recover money

for common law or equitable causes of action for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment based

upon … Jones’ receipt of Paycheck Protection Program funds (‘PPP’) to which she was not

entitled.” Doc. #1 at PageID 1. The complaint alleged that based on Jones’ misrepresentations,

Jones received a total of $41,666.00 in PPP loan proceeds, for which the Small Business

Administration (“SBA”) paid a total of $5,000.00 in processing fees to the financial institutions

involved, 1 and based on Jones’ false representations, the SBA forgave the loans. Id. at PageID 6–

7. On January 16, 2025, the Clerk of the Court entered a default against Jones on the United States’

motion. Docs. #4, #5. On February 5, 2025, following the United States’ January 27 motion for

a default judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(1), the Clerk of the Court

entered a default judgment against Jones “in the amount of $140,277.78, plus interest on the

judgment at the legal rate until the judgment is satisfied, and a separate filing fee of $405.00.”

Docs. #6, #8.

           Six days later, the parties jointly moved for the entry of an amended judgment against


1
    The complaint alleged that Jones received two PPP loans, each in the amount of $20,833.00. Doc. #1 at PageID 6.

       Case: 3:24-cv-00271-DMB-RP Doc #: 10 Filed: 02/13/25 2 of 2 PageID #: 34




Jones 2 “on the terms provided in the proposed [consent judgment].” Doc. #9 at PageID 32. As

cause, the joint motion represents that “[f]ollowing entry of the Default Judgment, counsel for the

United States and … Jones spoke and agreed to a reduction of the judgment from $140,277.78 to

$46,759.26.” Id. 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
        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 reviewed the proposed consent judgment—which requires Jones to pay

$46,759.26 plus interest and a $405.00 filing fee—and concludes 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 parties’ joint motion to amend [9] is GRANTED. The proposed consent judgment will be

signed and entered by the Court.

        SO ORDERED, this 13th day of February, 2025.

                                                             /s/Debra M. Brown
                                                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




2
 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than
28 days after the entry of the judgment.”

                                                        2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.msnd.49766.10.0.pdf

Size

131,354 bytes

SHA-256

927860553490ebfb1a55543d705f1f91c5474ee932a9bb5e7836a7ec25a5c385

Our copy

gov.uscourts.msnd.49766.10.0.pdf

Original

archive.org