Court filing

QUI TAM Complaint — United States ex rel. H Remidez, LLC v. Braman Imports, Inc (Dkt. 1, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

A qui tam complaint under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., filed in camera and under seal in United States ex rel. H Remidez, LLC v. Braman Imports, Inc., Braman Motors, Inc. and Palm Beach Imports, Inc., Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, entered September 30, 2025 as Document 1. The relator alleges that the three auto dealers certified compliance with Paycheck Protection Program rules but exceeded the program's size restrictions, including the 300-employee threshold for Second Draw PPP Loans, and that the SBA forgave $14.8 million in principal and interest. It alleges that the defendants' forgiveness applications repeated their eligibility certifications. The complaint demands a jury trial and runs 27 pages.

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

Filed September 30, 2025 in United States ex rel. H Remidez, LLC v. Braman Imports, Inc; one of 1 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed	2025-09-30

Cite this document

“QUI TAM Complaint — United States ex rel. H Remidez, LLC v. Braman Imports, Inc (Dkt. 1, S.D. Fla.).” U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 1:25-cv-24483, Doc. 1, filed 2025-09-30. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-braman-imports-inc-flsd-698185/2025-09-30-gov-uscourts-flsd-698185-1-0-doc-1/, SHA-256 d1ed60cb46f5b5f1e1680d9c27edec41d5c08d19b236154d187de1d9e0081396.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 1 of 27

SEALED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED BY 'n (.I D.C.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
SEP 29 2025
ANGELA E. NOBLE
CLERK U.S. DIST. CT.
S. D. OF FLA. · MIAMI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO.:
ex rel.
H REMIDEZ, LLC COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT,
Plaintiff, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq.,

V. FILED IN CAMERA
AND UNDER SEAL
BRAMAN IMPORTS, INC; BRAMAN PURSUANT TO 31 U.S.C. § 3730
MOTORS, INC.; and PALM BEACH
IMPORTS, INC. NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE
DO NOT PLACE IN PRESS BOX
Defendants. DO NOT ENTER ON PACER

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

QUI TAM COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Despite certifying their compliance with federal regulations governing

emergency financial aid from taxpayers, three auto dealers broke the rules

restricting Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") loans to small businesses,

making them ineligible for the program and $14.8 million in principal and interest

forgiven by the Small Business Administration ("SBA").

2. At the onset of the pandemic, Congress earmarked taxpayer-backed

loans of up to $10 million to small businesses by restricting participation to

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 2 of 27

companies that employed 500 or fewer and qualified as a small business concern as

defined by the SBA.

3. Legislators tightened the restrictions in the program's second phase,

reducing loans to $2 million or less for firms with 300 or fewer employees. The

enabling legislation and SBA regulations prohibited applicants from exceeding the

300-employee threshold for these Second Draw PPP Loans.

4. Braman Imports, Inc. ("Imports"), Braman Motors, Inc. ("Motors"),

and Palm Beach Imports, Inc. ("Palm Beach") (collectively, "Defendants")

exceeded the loan program's size restrictions, making them ineligible to participate

and receive individual loans from the First Draw PPP Loan program. Still, the SBA

forgave the outstanding loan balance and associated interest because the

Defendants submitted loan forgiveness applications reiterating their eligibility by

certifying the number of workers employed, compliance with SBA size

restrictions, and attesting that the information provided was true and correct. Those

representations were false.

5. The Defendants completed loan applications, certifying they were

eligible when they were not, despite asserting that the information submitted was

true and correct and acknowledging that making materially false statements

violated federal law.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 3 of 27

6. The Defendants knowingly falsely certified compliance to circumvent

the SBA-imposed size restrictions. Their actions caused the submission of false

claims to the SBA in violation of the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729,

et seq. ("False Claims Act" or "FCA") and fraudulently induced the issuance and

forgiveness of taxpayer-backed loans that otherwise would have been denied as

ineligible.

7. This action seeks to recover on behalf of the United States damages

and civil penalties arising from the purposeful submission of false and/or

fraudulent claims to the Government.

PARTIES

8. Relator H Remidez, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company. Dr.

Herbert Remidez, Jr. is the company's president, secretary, and treasurer. Dr.

Remidez holds a Ph.D. in Information Science and Learning Technologies from

the University of Missouri at Columbia. He has worked as a faculty member in the

Satish and Yasmin Gupta College of Business at the University of Dallas since

2010, where he currently serves as a tenured Associate Professor. From 2014

through the present, Dr. Remidez has taught business analytics courses with a

focus on cloud computing, big data analytics, predictive modeling, advanced

business analytics, and artificial intelligence in the University's Master of Science

in Business Analytics degree program. He is the Program Director for the

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 4 of 27

University's MS Business Analytics and MS Data Science and AI programs. Dr.

Remidez used advanced, proprietary data analytics to identify the fraud specified

here.

9. Defendant Braman Imports, Inc. of Miami, Florida is a member of

Braman Enterprises, which is based in Miami.

10. Defendant Braman Motors, Inc. of Miami, Florida is a member of

Braman Enterprises, which is based in Miami.

11. Defendant Palm Beach Imports, Inc. of Miami, Florida is a member of

Braman Enterprises, which is based in Miami.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This action arises under the FCA. This Court has jurisdiction over this

action pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1345, and 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a),

which specifically confer jurisdiction on this Court for actions brought under 31

U.S.C. § 3730.

13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 31

U.S.C. § 3732(a), which authorizes nationwide service of process, because

Defendants can be found in, reside in, have transacted business in, and/or have

committed the alleged acts in this District.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 5 of 27

14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(b)-(c)

and 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a) because Defendants can be found in, reside in, and/or

have transacted business in this District.

15 . Relator knows of no other FCA complaints that have been filed

against Defendants alleging the same or similar actions. Additionally, Relator is an

original source as defined in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B). The Relator made

voluntary disclosures to the United States before filing this lawsuit.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

TheFCA

16. The FCA reflects Congress' objective to "enhance the Government's

ability to recover losses as a result of fraud against the Government." S. Rep. No.

99-345 at 1 (1986). As relevant to this case, the FCA establishes liability for an

individual or entity that:

(A) knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or
fraudulent claim for payment or approval;

(B) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false
record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim;

(G) knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false
record or statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money
or property to the Government, or knowingly conceals or knowingly
and improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit
money or property to the Government.

31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l).

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 6 of 27

17. The FCA defines "knowing" and "knowingly" to mean that a person

with respect to information "(i) has actual knowledge of the information; (ii) acts

in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity of the information; or (iii) acts in

reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the information." 31 U.S.C. §

3729(b )(1 )(A). No proof of specific intent to defraud is required, and an innocent

mistake is not a defense to an action under the FCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1 )(B).

18. An "obligation" within the meaning of the FCA includes "[a]ny

overpayment retained by a person after the deadline for reporting and returning the

overpayment." 42 C.F.R. § 401.305(b).

19. In addition to treble damages, the FCA provides for the assessment of

civil penalties for each violation. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l )(G).

The CARES Act

20. Enacted on March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and

Economic Security (CARES) Act was designed to provide emergency financial

assistance to millions of Americans suffering from the economic effects caused by

the COVID-19 pandemic. Section 1102(a)(2) of the Act established the PPP by

amending Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 631. The SBA

administers the program.

21 . The initial and subsequent Congressional relief packages included

authorization for up to $930 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses for job

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 7 of 27

retention and certain other expenses through the PPP. The taxpayer-backed loans

were awarded in two tranches: First Draw PPP Loans and Second Draw PPP

Loans.

22. Private lenders, such as financial institutions, processed and approved

or rejected PPP loan applications. These lenders funded the approved loans using

their own money, although the SBA guaranteed the loans. SBA paid the lenders a

fee based on the size of the loan.

23. On December 27, 2020, President Donald J. Trump signed the

Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Venues Act

authorizing the SBA to guarantee Second Draw PPP Loans. Section 311 authorized

SBA to guarantee loans to borrowers who previously received First Draw PPP

Loans and used the proceeds for authorized purposes.

24. Enacted in the early days of the pandemic, the PPP program's purpose

was to support the economy by providing federally funded, guaranteed, and

forgivable loans to businesses as quickly as possible through the SBA. To expedite

the loans, Congress broadened eligibility requirements for borrowers and created a

bare-bones set of lending requirements for the private financial institutions that

issued the loans.

25. The stripped-down lending rules simply required eligible recipients to

certify that the loan was necessary, the money would be used for allowed purposes,

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 8 of 27

and the borrower did not already have a PPP loan. SBA regulations allowed

lenders to rely on these borrower certifications.

26. To obtain a First or Second Draw PPP loan, individuals and

businesses must complete an application in which an authorized representative

acknowledges the program rules and makes specific affirmative certifications.

27. The First Draw PPP Loan application required applicants to initial

eight separate certifications attesting compliance with federal law and SBA

eligibility regulations, including:

I further certify that the information pro\lided in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and
forms is true and accurate in all matmal respects. I understand tha kno\\ingly making a se statement to obtain a guaranteed loan
from SBA is }Xlllishableunderthe law, indudingunder 18 SC 1001 and 35 l by impri:sooment of morethanJiveyears and/ora
fine of up to S250 000: under 15 USC 645 by imprisonment ofnotmnthan t\\'O }"31$ and!or afme of not more than$5,000;ml if
submitted to a federally insured institution, under 18 • 1014 by imprisomnmt of not more than thirty years and/or a fine of not
more than $1,000.000.

28. SBA required each applicant for a Second Draw PPP Loan to make 15

separate certifications, including the same attestation found in the First Draw PPP

Loan application certifying compliance with federal law and SBA regulations:

I furthtr certify that the infonnation pro idtd in this application and the information provided in all supporting documents and fonus is true
and accurate in all material re~cts. I understand that knowingly making a false statement to obtain a guaranteed loan from SBA is punishable
under the law including under 1S U.S.C. 1001 and 3571 by imprisonment ofnot more than five years an ora fine ofup to S250.000; under
15 U.S.C. 645 by imprisonmmt of not more than two years an or a fine of not mort than SS.000· and, if submitted to a federally insured
institution, under 1S U.S.C. 1014 by imprisonment of not more than thirty yem and/or a fine ofnot more than Sl ,000,000.

29 . To obtain a First Draw loan, federal law and SBA regulations require

applicants to employ no more than 500 and qualify as a small business concern,

after applying the agency' s affiliation rules.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 9 of 27

30. The size of a business concern is determined under the SBA's size

standards as they apply to the "concern whose size is at issue and all of its

domestic and foreign affiliates." 13 C.F.R. § 121.301(£)(6).

31 . On April 2, 2020, SBA posted a regulation that told borrowers what

they needed to know and do to obtain a First Draw PPP Loan. The agency

published the same rule on April 15, 2020. It said:

2. What do borrowers need to know and do?

a. Am I eligible?

You are eligible for a PPP loan if you have 500 or fewer
employees whose principal place of residence is in the United
States, or are a business that operates in a certain industry and
meet the applicable SBA-employee-based size standards for that
industry, and:

1. You are:

A. A small business concern as defined in section 3 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632), and subject to
SBA's affiliation rules under 13 CFR 121.301(£) unless
specifically waived in the ACT .. .

Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program, 85

Fed. Reg. 20811 , 812 (April 15, 2020).

32. The SBA publishes a table of small business size standards that are,

for the most part, expressed in either the millions of dollars or the number of

employees. On the website introducing the size standards, the agency noted:

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 10 of 27

A size standard is the largest that a concern can be and still qualify as a
small business for Federal Government programs.

33 . The SBA defines affiliation as one firm having the power to control

another or a single person or entity having the ability to control both. 13 CFR §

121.103(a)(l) describes the SBA's general principles of affiliation and defines

control:

Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or
has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties controls or
has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is
exercised, so long as the power to control exists.

34. Further, 13 CFR §121.103(a)(4) adds: "Affiliation may be found

where an individual, concern, or entity exercises control indirectly through a

third party."

35. Where the SBA concludes that firms are affiliated, it combines their

revenues and the number of employees of all its domestic and foreign affiliates

before comparing the aggregated amounts to the program's size limit. 13 CFR §

121.103(a)(6).

36. The CARES Act waived the affiliation rules for certain business

concerns, including companies in the hotel and restaurant industry, businesses

listed in the SBA's franchise directory, and businesses receiving financial

assistance from a licensed Small Business Investment Company. 15 U.S.C. §

636(a)(36)(D)(iv).

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 11 of 27

37. SBA regulations also provide an alternative method for determining

whether PPP applicants qualify as a small business concern. Implemented by the

Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the alternative size standard qualifies a company

as a small business using the entity's net worth and net income.

38. The standard in place from 2010 through March 18, 2024 said: (1)

The maximum tangible net worth of the business is not more than $15 million; and,

(2) The average net income after Federal income taxes (excluding any carry-over

losses) of the business for the two full fiscal years before the date of the application

is not more than $5 million.

39. SBA restated the rule in an FAQ published on April 6, 2020, adding

that an applicant must comply with the rule as of March 27, 2020. See Paycheck

Protection Program Loans - Frequently Asked Questions, U.S. Small Business

Administration & U.S. Department of the Treasury, FAQ No. 2 (Apr. 6, 2020); see

also Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program as

Amended by the American Rescue Plan Act, 86 Fed. Reg. 15085, 15086 n.5 (Mar.

22, 2021) (restating that under SBA's "alternative size standard," a business

concern may qualify as a small business concern if it, together with affiliates, has

(1) a maximum tangible net worth not more than $15 million, and (2) an average

net income after federal income taxes for the two full fiscal years before

application not more than $5 million).

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 12 of 27

40. The SBA and the Department of the Treasury also published

regulations and guidance describing the criteria for a PPP borrower to obtain loan

forgiveness. SBA required applicants to complete a detailed loan forgiveness

application certifying compliance with federal law and regulations.

41. The loan forgiveness calculation portion of the application required

borrowers to provide the SBA with the number of employees at the time of their

loan application and at the time of the loan forgiveness application. The SBA also

required borrowers to detail eligible payroll costs and provide supporting

documentation.

42. The application required borrowers to maintain documentation

supporting the loan request's necessity and the borrower's eligibility. It said:

Documents that Each Borrower Must Maintain but is not Required
to Submit

All records relating to the Borrower's PPP loan, including
documentation submitted with its PPP loan application, documentation
supporting the Borrower's certifications as to the necessity of the loan
request and its eligibility for a PPP loan, documentation necessary to
support the Borrower' s loan forgiveness application, and
documentation demonstrating the Borrower's material compliance with
PPP requirements.

43. Borrowers certified the payroll costs and said, "The information

provided in all supporting documents and forms is true and correct in all material

respects."

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 13 of 27

44. Knowingly making a false statement to obtain loan forgiveness

subjects borrowers to imprisonment of not more than five years and/or a fine of up

to $250,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and imprisonment of not more than two years

and/or a fine of not more than $5,000 under 15 U.S.C. § 645.

45. False statements submitted to a federally insured institution are

punishable by imprisonment of up to 30 years and/or a fine of not more than $1

million under 18 U.S.C. § 1014.

46. The May 5, 2020, and subsequent applications said directly above the

signature line of the authorized representative of the borrower:

The Borrower' s eligibility for loan forgiveness will be evaluated in
accordance with the PPP regulations and guidance issued by SBA
through the date of this application. SBA may direct a lender to
disapprove the Borrower' s loan forgiveness if SBA determines that the
Borrower was ineligible for the PPP loan.

47 . A June 26, 2020 interim final rule published by the SBA emphasized

that the SBA would not forgive PPP loans of ineligible borrowers. It said:

If SBA determines in the course of its review that the borrower was
ineligible for the PPP loan based on the provisions of the CARES Act,
SBA rules or guidance available at the time of the borrower' s loan
application, or the terms of the borrower' s PPP loan application (for
example, because the borrower lacked an adequate basis for the
certifications that it made in its PPP loan application), the loan will not
be eligible for forgiveness.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 14 of 27

Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program-

Revisions to Loan Forgiveness and Loan Review Procedures Interim Final Rules,

85 Fed. Reg. 38304, 306 (June 26, 2020).

48. SBA reiterated that ineligible PPP borrowers would not be eligible for

loan forgiveness in rules and regulations published in the Federal Register on

February 5, 2021.

49. On August 19, 2022, an IRS memorandum concluded that taxpayers

whose PPP loan was forgiven must include the PPP loan proceeds in gross income,

even though the taxpayer did not qualify for forgiveness.

RELATOR'S METHODOLOGY

50. In 2020, Dr. Remidez, the principal of the Relator, used his

knowledge of advanced analytics in conjunction with various cloud computing

software packages that rely on artificial intelligence ("AI") to review electronic

information maintained by the SBA detailing PPP loans made to individuals, sole

proprietorships, and companies across the country.

51. Dr. Remidez assembled a PPP-loan database of 67 separate and

related tables ranging in size from 2,840 to 8.8 million rows . Database tables

organize information into rows and columns, much like an Excel spreadsheet,

making it easier to store and compare.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 15 of 27

52. His analysis began by converting each of the PPP program regulations

and guidance into software rules that could be used to help examine the hundreds

of billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans.

53. After structuring and organizing the SBA data, Dr. Remidez

augmented his PPP-loan database with information from 27 separate sources,

including:

• non-profit tax information maintained by the Internal Revenue

Service;

• data from the U.S. Treasury, the Department of Labor, the Federal

Deposit Insurance Corporation;

• legislative lobbying records held by Congress;

• datasets detailing individuals and companies debarred or excluded

from federal contracting, businesses registered under the Foreign

Agents Registration Act, investment firms supervised by the

Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), and firms that are

traded on national stock exchanges; and,

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services data related to facility

ownership.

54. These datasets use different naming conventions and identifiers,

making an electronic comparison impossible. Resolving these differences to allow

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 16 of 27

an accurate comparison required exploratory analysis, data preparation, and the

development of customized computer code, commonly called recipes, to identify

and resolve inconsistencies and anomalies. In this case, the data "cleaning" process

used customized software recipes with as many as 59 steps.

55. These cleaning steps include, for example, removing leading and

trailing whitespaces, replacing missing values, and converting names to uppercase.

This cleaning process was applied to each of these varied datasets. Many of the

database inquiries used to standardize the information required hours to complete.

56. Dr. Remidez then employed an entity resolution software program

assisted entity resolution software systems used in this analysis are discriminative

AI systems.

57 . Generative systems, like ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion, generate new

text output or images based on training from massive datasets. Discriminative AI

systems are used for classification or regression and return a prediction based on

conditional probability. One example of these systems is the time travel predictions

made by Google Maps. The AI-assisted entity resolution software systems used as

part of this analysis are discriminative AI systems.

58 . Entity resolution software determines whether records from diverse

sources match. Record-matching programs can match names with slight

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 17 of 27

misspellings, accent marks, and abbreviations. They cannot recognize relationships

within the data or update results to incorporate newly added information. AI-driven

programs perform rudimentary matching while incorporating additional techniques

to recognize what the underlying data strings represent.

59. The AI software used by Dr. Remidez recognizes common

nicknames, common misspellings, and variations on the same address. For

example, the AI learning model equates Jim with James, Bill with William, and

Mohammed with Mohammad. It also recognizes and matches address variations,

such as 1 First St. and One 1st Street. When new information is added, the AI-

driven software dynamically updates. In simple terms, it "learns" with every

update.

60. In the spring and fall of 2021 , Dr. Remidez used advanced analytics

techniques, including AI, to review electronic information maintained by the SBA

detailing PPP loans to individuals, sole proprietorships, and companies across the

country. His review of PPP loans to Arizona borrowers in November 2021 shows

the differences between conventional and AI-driven software analysis. An analysis

using Microsoft Excel found 209 duplicate borrowers among 128,807 loans. After

cleaning the data, Excel identified 253 . Using the same data, the AI-driven

software labeled 865 as duplicates, four as possible duplicates, and 24,000 as

possibly related.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 18 of 27

61 . In this example, after adding eight additional data sets - comprising

medical practices and business addresses, Economic Injury Disaster Loans,

resident visa applications, Shuttered Venue, and Restaurant Revitalization loans -

the duplicates increased by 63, and the possibly related category fell by 2,600 .

62. While these results are impressive, all AI systems are fallible . To

mitigate errors, Dr. Remidez compared the results against additional records, such

as state business registries, and employed other filters and software to verify the

outcome. Finally, Dr. Remidez manually checked the results.

63 . Dr. Remidez augmented his databases with information from the SEC,

USAspending.gov, which maintains spending records on other pandemic aid

programs, and various publicly available datasets detailing corporate ownership.

64. The matching process allowed Dr. Remidez to identify loan recipients

and affiliates who exceeded the SBA size restrictions.

65. Because federal law and regulations exempted businesses with certain

North American Industry Classification System ("NAICS") codes, such as those

beginning with 72, 511110, and 5151 - categories that include hotels, restaurants,

and news organizations - Dr. Remidez eliminated these companies from his

analysis.

66 . Dr. Remidez further refined his analysis by eliminating companies

from business sectors exempted from the 500- and 300-employee cap and firms

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 19 of 27

specializing in convention and trade shows because they likely had fewer than 300

employees when applying for a First Draw PPP Loan.

67. After a rigorous electronic and manual review of the results to ensure

accuracy, Dr. Remidez applied the software rules he developed from PPP loan

program regulations to identify violations of the eligibility criteria.

68 . Although Relator used publicly available information, the Relator is

the original source of the allegations and the proprietary analysis, methodology,

and data synthesis detailed herein.

ALLEGATIONS

69. To obtain a PPP loan, businesses were required to complete an

application in which an authorized representative acknowledged the program rules

and certified, among other things, their company's average monthly payroll

expenses and the number of employees. These components were used to calculate

the size of the loan each small business was eligible to receive.

70. On the First Draw PPP Loan application, the SBA required borrowers

to disclose whether the applicant is a franchise listed in the SBA's Franchise

Directory. The CARES Act exempted franchises from the SBA affiliation rules.

71 . The application warns that making a false statement is punishable by

up to a 30-year prison term and/or a $1 million fine.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 20 of 27

72. Braman Enterprises is one of the top auto dealer groups in the

country, selling brands that include Bentley, Bugatti, Acura, Audi, Kia, Honda,

Hyundai, Rolls-Royce, Porsche, Mini, Cadillac, Mercedes, and BMW. Its Miami

and West Palm Beach stores are two of the best-selling luxury dealerships in the

nation, based on total revenue.

73. Defendants Imports, Motors, and Palm Beach are part of a 20-car

dealership group owned and operated by Norman Braman and his family in South

Florida. The three companies share corporate officers and a corporate mailing

address. The company officers include Braman and his grandsons, Brian and Alex

Shack.

74. On April 9, 2020, Defendants Imports, Motors, and Palm Beach

received approval for $14.5 million in First Draw PPP Loans for which they were

not eligible because they are not small businesses.

75. Federal law and regulations require applicants for PPP loans to certify

that they are small business concerns that comply with the size standards published

by the SBA. To qualify as a small business, new car dealers must certify that they

employ fewer than 200 or have a net worth of $15 million or less, or an average net

income of no more than $5 million over the previous two years. Defendants Palm

Beach Imports, Braman Motors, and Braman Imports failed to meet either

criterion.

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 21 of 27

76 . Contrary to federal regulations limiting loans to small business

concerns, each Defendant employs more workers and generates more revenue and

net income than allowed.

77. SBA size standards categorize new car dealers, identified under the

NAICS code 441110, with 200 or fewer employees as small businesses. Loan

applications submitted by Defendants Imports, Motors, and Palm Beach reported

that each dealership employed more than 200. All three Defendants are classified

under NAICS code 441110.

78. The alternative size standard employed by SBA requires companies to

have a tangible net worth of no more than $15 million or $5 million in net income

over the previous two years to qualify as a small business. The Braman auto group

generates revenue of $3 billion annually.

79. The dealerships operated by the Defendants sell, among others, luxury

brands such as Bentley, Bugatti, BMW, Porsche, and Rolls-Royce.

80 . The companies receiving these ineligible loans are listed in the

following paragraphs.

81. Defendant Imports of 7000 Coral Way in Miami obtained approval

for a $2,376,900 loan, loan number 5587367009, on April 5, 2020, from City

National Bank of Florida. On its application, the company certified how many

workers it employed. The SBA reported that the company employed 224. On

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 22 of 27

January 26, 2022, upon the recommendation of the lender, the SBA forgave

outstanding principal and interest totaling $2,419,163.

82 . Defendant Motors of 2060 Biscayne Blvd in Miami obtained approval

for a $5,921 ,500 loan, loan number 5798567010, on April 6, 2020, from City

National Bank of Florida. On its application, the company certified how many

workers it employed. The SBA reported the company employed 405. On January

25, 2022, upon the recommendation of the lender, the SBA forgave outstanding

principal and interest totaling $6,026,627.

83 . Defendant Palm Beach of 2060 Biscayne Blvd in Miami obtained

approval for a $6,245,700 loan, loan number 1026057110, on April 9, 2020, from

Truist Bank of Charlotte, North Carolina. On its application, the company certified

how many workers it employed. The SBA reported the company employed 437.

On January 25, 2022, upon the recommendation of the lender, the SBA forgave

outstanding principal and interest totaling $6,356,785 .

DAMAGES

84 . Federal law and SBA regulations prohibited entities that did not meet

the SBA size standards from obtaining First Draw PPP Loans. None of these

Defendants met the size standards.

85 . The Defendants certified they were eligible for taxpayer-backed

economic aid and that they complied with the laws and regulations governing the

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 23 of 27

PPP loan program when they did not. These certifications and assertions were

false.

86. Their false statements, certified as true and correct, enabled the

Defendants to obtain PPP loans for which they were not eligible. Federal

regulations and the application for loan forgiveness explicitly state that borrowers

who were ineligible for a PPP loan are also ineligible for loan forgiveness.

87 . Yet, contrary to federal law and regulations, the Defendants applied

for their debt to be forgiven, despite knowing that they were ineligible to seek or

obtain forgiveness from taxpayers.

88. The Defendants are liable to the United States for the $14.8 million in

principal and interest on the loans forgiven by taxpayers and the $145,441 in fees

the SBA paid lenders to process, evaluate, and issue the loans.

COUNTI
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(l)(A) and (B)

89. Relator re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1-88 above as though fully set forth herein. As described

in greater detail above, the Defendants exploited federal financial aid programs

designed to support financially struggling small businesses during the pandemic.

More specifically, the Defendants employed false and fraudulent statements and

certified them as true to obtain PPP loans they were not eligible for or entitled to .

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 24 of 27

90. After receiving taxpayer-backed loans for which they were not

eligible, the Defendants electronically transmitted loan forgiveness applications

falsely certifying that they complied with the SBA size restrictions that determined

loan eligibility.

91 . Both the forgiveness application and federal regulations explicitly

state that borrowers who received but were not qualified for PPP loans, or used the

funds for unauthorized purposes, are not eligible for loan forgiveness.

92 . The false and fraudulent assertions by the Defendants to lenders and

the SBA resulted in taxpayers writing off $14 .8 million in principal and interest

that the Defendants owed and were required by federal law and regulations to pay.

93 . Under the FCA, the Defendant violated:

1. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(A) by knowingly presenting, or causing to
be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval;
and

ii. 31 U.S .C. § 3729(a)(l)(B) by knowingly making, using, or causing
to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or
fraudulent claim.

94. Because of the false claims made by the Defendants, the United States

has suffered and continues to suffer damages and is therefore entitled to a recovery

as provided by the FCA of an amount to be determined at trial, plus a civil penalty

for each violation. The damages to date are at least $14 .9 million, which represents

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 25 of 27

the loans given to entities exceeding the SBA size restrictions, and the lender fees

associated with the loans.

COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a)(l)(G)

95. Relator re-alleges and incorporates by reference every allegation

contained in paragraphs 1-88 as though fully set forth herein. As described in

greater detail above, the Defendants certified false and fraudulent statements that

they complied with size restrictions enacted by Congress as true and correct to

obtain PPP loans and the forgiveness of the principal and interest they owed.

96 . Federal law and regulations required the Defendants to correctly

certify the number of workers they employed and provide payroll records and other

documentation supporting their loans and loan forgiveness applications.

Defendants Imports, Motors and Palm Beach certified these submissions as

accurate when they were false.

97 . SBA rules allowed lenders to rely on the certifications received from

applicants to determine the amount borrowed and eligibility for PPP loans. The

SBA relied upon the Defendants' false and fraudulent statements to authorize the

lending.

98. After receiving loans for which they were not eligible, the Defendants

applied for and received taxpayer forgiveness for the principal and interest due,

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 26 of 27

despite regulations prohibiting ineligible borrowers from receiving loan

forgiveness .

99. The private lenders who issued the loans on behalf of the federal

government and the SBA relied upon these false and fraudulent statements to

award financial aid that would have otherwise been denied and to forgive the debt.

100. The Defendants' false and fraudulent statements induced the SBA to

authorize financial aid to ineligible borrowers and then forgive principal and

interest -- debt relief to which the company was not entitled.

101. The Defendants' fraudulent conduct violated 31 U.S.C. §

3729(a)(l)(G), which provides for liability under the FCA for any person who:

knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used, a false record or
statement material to an obligation to pay or transmit money or property
to the Government, or knowingly conceals or knowingly and
improperly avoids or decreases an obligation to pay or transmit money
or property to the Government.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Relator, on behalf of the United States, respectfully requests

that:

a. This Court enters an order determining that Defendants violated the

FCA by making false statements and records to cause false claims to be submitted

to the United States;

Case 1:25-cv-24483-JB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2025 Page 27 of 27

b. This Court enters an order requiring Defendants to pay the maximum

civil penalties allowable to be imposed for each false or fraudulent claim presented

to the United States;

c. This Court enters an order requiring Defendants to cease and desist

from violating the FCA;

d. This Court enters an order requiring Defendants to pay all expenses,

attorneys' fees, and costs associated with this action;

e. This Court enters an order paying Relator the maximum statutory

award for its contributions to the prosecution of this action; and

f. This Court grants any and all other relief as this Court determines to

be reasonable and just.

PLAINTIFF/RELATOR DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL COUNTS

Dated: September 26, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

Isl David C. Fulleborn
David C. Fullebom
Florida Bar No. : 1008507
dfullebom@hoyerlawgroup.com
Sean Estes
Florida Bar No .: 0055770
sean@hoyerlawgroup.com
Hoyer Law Group, PLLC
2801 W. Busch Blvd., Suite 200
Tampa, Florida 33618
Tel.: (813) 375-3700
Fax: (813) 375-3710

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.698185.1.0.pdf
Size: 1,793,617 bytes
SHA-256: d1ed60cb46f5b5f1e1680d9c27edec41d5c08d19b236154d187de1d9e0081396
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.698185.1.0.pdf
Original: storage.courtlistener.com

QUI TAM Complaint — United States ex rel. H Remidez, LLC v. Braman Imports, Inc (Dkt. 1, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

Record facts

Cite this document

Full text

File and source

Related records