Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC

Case docket

Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC — U.S. District Court, E.D. Ark.

Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC — 19 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, filed between January 6, 2022 and July 19, 2022. Among them: 5 exhibits, 4 motions and 2 orders.

Case facts

CaptionGreathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC
CourtU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas
Docket number4:21-cv-01243
Filings19 public filings
Filed2022-01-06 – 2022-07-19
Document typesexhibits (5), motions (4), orders (2), summons or warrant (1), declaration (1), notice (1)
Original PDFs19 of 19

Case summary

Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, No. 4:21-cv-01243 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, is a putative class action by Eric Greathouse, Ernesto Covarrubias, Tiffany Sumrall and Barbara Myles against the Paycheck Protection Program lender Capital Plus Financial, LLC and its corporate parent Crossroads Systems, Inc. The amended class action complaint, filed March 28, 2022, seeks damages, an accounting and equitable relief for what it describes as a failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans that Capital Plus Financial was contractually obligated to fund, and pleads breach of contract, unjust enrichment and state deceptive trade practices claims. On July 19, 2022 the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding personal jurisdiction lacking, and entered judgment dismissing the case without prejudice the same day.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs Eric Greathouse, Ernesto Covarrubias, Tiffany Sumrall and Barbara Myles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; defendants Capital Plus Financial, LLC and Crossroads Systems, Inc.
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, No. 4:21-cv-01243-BRW, before Judge Billy Roy Wilson
ProgramPaycheck Protection Program (PPP), created by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act and administered by the Small Business Administration
ClaimsCount One, breach of contract against Capital Plus Financial; unjust enrichment; and deceptive trade practices claims, pleaded under California's Unfair Competition Law as to Covarrubias and North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act as to Myles
Disposition or statusDismissed without prejudice. The order of July 19, 2022 granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) and denied jurisdictional discovery; judgment entered the same day
Status checked2026-09-23 · against the court docket and DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22

What does the complaint allege?

That the plaintiffs did not receive SBA-approved PPP loans that Capital Plus Financial had agreed to fund, and that the standard form promissory note and loan documents it and the proposed class entered into were binding, enforceable agreements. These are the complaint's allegations.

Why was the case dismissed?

Because the court found personal jurisdiction lacking. The order states that since personal jurisdiction is lacking the court need not discuss the defendants' other arguments for dismissal, which were failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1).

What figures does the complaint give?

That Capital Plus Financial committed to fund at least 2,134 separate SBA-approved PPP loans in 2021 for qualified borrowers residing in the Eastern District of Arkansas alone, for total PPP loan proceeds of at least $32,770,618.00, citing the SBA's publicly available PPP loan data.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.

Filings

19 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

  1. Summons Returned Executed — Greathouse v. Capital PlusSummons or warrant · PDF
  2. AFFIDAVIT of Service , filed by Eric Greathouse.…Declaration · PDF
  3. Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 4, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Motion · PDF
  4. Notice of Appearance by Karen P. Freeman on behalf — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 17, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Notice · PDF
  5. Initial Scheduling Order: Rule 26(f) Conference to occur — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 6, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)PDF
  6. Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 18, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Motion · PDF
  7. Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 19, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Motion · PDF
  8. Motion for Leave to Appear pro hac vice — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 22, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Motion · PDF
  9. Exhibit AExhibit · Dkt. 24.1 · PDF
  10. Exhibit BExhibit · Dkt. 24.2 · PDF
  11. AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against All…Complaint · PDF
  12. Deficiency Letter from Clerk of Court re 4 Motion to Extend Time — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 34, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)PDF
  13. Exhibit AExhibit · Dkt. 44.1 · PDF
  14. Exhibit BExhibit · Dkt. 44.2 · PDF
  15. Order Regarding Discovery Dispute: Based on the arguments made — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 46, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Order · PDF
  16. Exhibit AExhibit · Dkt. 49.1 · PDF
  17. FIRST FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 1/17/2023 at…PDF
  18. Order granting 44 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 54, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Order · PDF
  19. Judgment: Based on the 54 Order entered today, 7/19/2022, this case — Greathouse v. Capital Plus Financial LLC (Dkt. 55, E.D. Ark. No. 4:21-cv-01243)Judgment · PDF

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

Back to top