Court filing

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 37, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Filed May 2, 2022 in Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC; one of 344 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Filed	2022-05-02

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 37 · 2022-05-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 1 of 175

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALICIA MARSHALL, DANIEL
PRONSKY, PARIS TOWNSEND,
NANCILEE HOLLAND, LEONA
OWSLEY, KOLAWOLE AHMADOU,
KIANA DERVIN, KRISTINA
HENDERSON, DUSTIN INNIS, KELLY
STALNAKER and JAMIE JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Plaintiffs,
v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC,
Defendant.

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs hereby move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to file their
proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the “SAC”), and in support thereof state as
follows:
1.

Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint alleges that defendant Prestamos CDFI, LLC

(“Prestamos”) failed to fund Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans for their businesses,
despite the U.S. Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) approval of those loans. ECF 18.
Prestamos is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”). Id. ¶ 50.
2.

New publicly available information reflects that CPLC itself directed Prestamos’s

activities in connection with PPP lending such that it caused Prestamos to upstream to CPLC
over $314 million in PPP loan processing fees according to CPLC’s own financial statements,
even though Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved lender, and that CPLC otherwise

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 2 of 175

also managed Prestamos’s affairs and played a substantial and direct role in the events referenced
in the Amended Complaint. Accordingly, leave should be granted so Plaintiffs may file their
Second Amended Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3.

Plaintiffs’ proposed SAC is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and adds CPLC as a

defendant and related factual allegations, but adds no new substantive claims against defendant
Prestamos. A redlined copy of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, which compares it
to the pending Amended Class Action Complaint, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
4.

Plaintiffs contacted defendant Prestamos to seek its consent to Plaintiffs’ filing

their SAC pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Defendant Prestamos advised that it opposes
Plaintiffs’ request to file the SAC to add CPLC as a defendant.
5.

On February 15, 2022 Plaintiffs issued document and deposition subpoenas to

CPLC. CPLC moved to quash Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoena and Plaintiffs moved to compel
CPLC to comply with Plaintiffs’ document subpoena. Those proceedings are pending before
Judge Diane Humetewa in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and are captioned
Marshall, et al. v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC, No. 2:22-mc-00007-DJH (D. Ariz.). Notably, the
same two law firms that represent defendant Prestamos in this Court also represent proposed
defendant CPLC in the Arizona proceedings. Accordingly, there can be no reasonable claim that
granting Plaintiffs’ motion and permitting the filing of Plaintiffs’ SAC would unduly prejudice
Prestamos or CPLC or unduly delay these proceedings.
6.

On February 14, 2022, defendant Prestamos moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’

currently-operative Amended Complaint. ECF 24. On March 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their
opposition and on March 17, 2022, defendant Prestamos filed its reply. ECF 29, 32. Plaintiffs
are amenable to deferring further proceedings on defendant Prestamos’s current motion to

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 3 of 175

dismiss to coordinate any motion to dismiss CPLC may want to file should the Court grant
Plaintiffs leave to file the SAC, or otherwise as the Court may direct.
7.

For the foregoing and other reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum

of law, and by virtue of the early procedural stage in which this litigation remains, Plaintiffs’
request to file the SAC complies with the prevailing standards governing the amendment of
pleadings.
8.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant this Motion and

direct and instruct the Clerk to accept the SAC for filing.
Dated: May 2, 2022

Respectfully submitted,
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
By: /s/ Lawrence J. Lederer
Lawrence J. Lederer (Pa. ID 50445)
Michael L. Murphy (pro hac vice)
Bart D. Cohen (Pa. ID 57606)
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
T.: 202.463.2101
F.: 202.463.2103
llederer@baileyglasser.com
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
and
NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP
Justin A. Heller (admitted pro hac vice)
Matthew M. Zapala (admitted pro hac vice)
80 State Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
T.: 518.449.3300
F.: 518.432.3123
jheller@nhkllp.com
mzapala@nhkllp.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 4 of 175

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on May 2, 2022, I caused Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend
the Complaint, and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof to be filed on the Court’s CM/ECF
system and for service of same on all counsel of record.

/s/ Lawrence J. Lederer
Lawrence J. Lederer

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 5 of 175

EXHIBIT 1:
SECOND AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 6 of 175

Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

[PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,
v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC and CHICANOS
POR LA CAUSA, INC.,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend, Nancilee Holland, Leona
Owsley, Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana Dervin, Kristina Henderson, Dustin Innis, Kelly Stalnaker
and Jamie Jones (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, file this Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand for damages and
equitable relief against defendants Prestamos CDFI, LLC (“Prestamos”) and Chicanos Por La
Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for their respective roles in failing to fund
approved Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or the “Program”) loans. In support, Plaintiffs
make the following allegations based upon information and belief except as to the allegations
pertaining to the Plaintiffs which are based on personal knowledge. Plaintiffs’ information and
belief is based, among other things, on the ongoing investigation of their undersigned counsel
which included, without limitation, a review of applicable documents, publicly-available
information concerning the PPP and PPP loans, and media and other information, including

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 7 of 175

information available on the Internet. Plaintiffs believe that substantial additional evidentiary
support will exist for their allegations after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Summary of the Claims
1.

Following the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19, Congress passed the

Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) to, among many other
things, provide some relief to America’s small businesses and sole proprietors through the
creation of the PPP.
2.

Administered by the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”), the

PPP was established to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of potentially forgivable loans to
small businesses and sole proprietors in a quick and efficient manner.
3.

To ensure that small businesses and sole proprietors received PPP loan proceeds

quickly, the applicable provisions of the PPP required lenders to fund PPP loans within ten days
of SBA approval.
4.

Lenders that participated in the Program were entitled to fees payable by the SBA

for each PPP loan the lenders processed.
5.

Defendant Prestamos was one of the SBA’s authorized PPP lenders.

In 2020, Prestamos processed 935 PPP loans totaling less than $27 million gross,

thereby reportedly receiving $1.3 million in fees.
7.

Defendant Prestamos is and during all times relevant was wholly owned by

defendant CPLC. Defendant CPLC at all times relevant controlled and dominated defendant
Prestamos and Prestamos’s PPP lending; shared certain of the same senior executives and
directors; had a website that referred to and promoted Prestamos; publicly held out the
companies as one and the same and repeatedly referred to them as “CPLC Prestamos” in CPLC’s

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 8 of 175

Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Annual Report “A Chance to Change the World.” See CPLC FY19-20,
Annual Report, at 7, available at https://cplc.org/assets/files/publications/CPLC%20FY1920%20Annual-Report.pdf (last visited May 1, 2022)) (“During the pandemic, CPLC Prestamos
is administering Paycheck Protection (PPP) loans to help small businesses keep their doors
open.”) (emphasis added); reported on CPLC’s own financial statements that it received
hundreds of millions of dollars in PPP loan processing fees; and is headquartered in a building
that is virtually adjacent to Prestamos’s headquarters. See https://cplc.org/ (CPLC located in
Phoenix at 1112 E. Buckeye Road); https://www.prestamosloans.org/phoenix/ (Prestamos
located in Phoenix at 1024 E. Buckeye Road). In addition, CPLC is or was represented in
connection with two subpoenas Plaintiffs issued to CPLC by the same law firm that represents
Prestamos in this litigation. 1
8.

After the SBA substantially increased the fees lenders would receive for PPP

loans made in 2021, CPLC caused Prestamos to exploit that increased fee opportunity by
dramatically ramping up its participation in PPP lending. Defendants were hugely successful in
that respect.
9.

In particular, in 2021 alone, Prestamos exponentially expanded its PPP lending,

reportedly processing 494,415 PPP loans totaling over $7.6 billion through May 31, 2021 -more PPP loans than any other lender in 2021, and more than the total number of PPP loans
made in 2021 by Bank of America, PNC Bank, TD Bank and Wells Fargo combined. See

Plaintiffs issued two subpoenas to CPLC on or about February 15, 2022, one for
documents and the other for a deposition. CPLC moved to quash Plaintiffs’ deposition subpoena,
and Plaintiffs moved to compel CPLC’s document production. As of the filing of Plaintiffs’
motion for leave to file this proposed Second Amended Complaint, both motions remain pending
before Judge Diane J. Humetewa in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, where
both CPLC and Prestamos are headquartered. See Marshall, et al. v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC, Case
No. 22-mc-00007-DJH (D. Ariz.).
3

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 9 of 175

Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Report: Approvals through 05/31/2021, at 7, available at
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Report: Approvals through 05/31/2021 (sba.gov) (last
visited Sept. 21, 2021).
10.

As a result, Prestamos has reportedly received nearly $1.2 billion in fees in 2021.

See Stacy Crowley & Ella Koeze, How Two Start-Ups Reaped Billions in Fees on Small
Business Relief Loans, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2021, Updated Oct. 11, 2021, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacorn-womply.html (last
visited May 1, 2022).
11.

Although Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved PPP lender, CPLC and

its senior personnel controlled and directed Prestamos’s PPP lending and was the alter ego of
Prestamos. Thus, Prestamos upstreamed all or the bulk of its PPP lender processing fees directly
to CPLC and CPLC, in turn, booked and disclosed at least some portion of those fees in CPLC’s
own financial statements.
12.

In particular, according to CPLC’s own Consolidated Financial Statements and

Supplementary Information for the year ended June 30, 2021 (the “Financial Statements”), “[f]or
each approved PPP loan, the Small Business Administration (SBA) covered a percentage of the
loan principal balance as a loan processing fee to the organization. The fee is amortized through
the term of each PPP loan. As of June 30, 2021, the Organization received $314,260,826 from
SBA, $5,086,196 was recognized as loan fee revenue and $309,174,630 was recorded as deferred
revenue.” See ProPublica, Chicanos Por La Cause Inc., Consolidated Financial Statements, p.20
Year Ended June 30, 2021, available at
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/11175820211 (last visited May 2, 2022).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

13.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 10 of 175

In flagrant disregard of its contractual obligations to the class member borrowers,

however, Prestamos failed to actually fund class member borrowers’ SBA-approved PPP loans.
14.

Indeed, Plaintiffs and thousands of others each timely applied for PPP loans with

Prestamos, had their loans approved by the SBA and assigned PPP loan numbers, and yet never
were paid their PPP loan funds by Defendant.
Parties
15.

Plaintiff Alicia Marshall (“Marshall”), a natural person residing in Sacramento,

California, is a sole proprietor of an in-home healthcare business.
16.

Plaintiff Daniel Pronsky (“Pronsky”), a natural person residing in Reading,

Pennsylvania, is a sole proprietor of a food catering business.
17.

Plaintiff Paris Townsend (“Townsend”), a natural person residing in San

Bernadino, California, is a sole proprietor in the business of making and selling hair care
products.
18.

Plaintiff Nancilee Holland (“Holland”), a natural person residing in Greenwich,

Connecticut, is a sole proprietor of a real estate agency.
19.

Plaintiff Leona Owsley (“Owsley”), a natural person residing in El Dorado

Springs, Missouri, is a sole proprietor of a construction business.
20.

Plaintiff Kolawole Ahmadou (“Ahmadou”), a natural person residing in Evanston,

Illinois, is a sole proprietor of an in-home healthcare business.
21.

Plaintiff Kiana Dervin (“Dervin”), a natural person residing in Lynnwood,

Washington, is a sole proprietor of a janitorial business.
22.

Plaintiff Kristina Henderson (“Henderson”), a natural person residing in Macomb,

Michigan, is a sole proprietor of a clothing business.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

23.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 11 of 175

Plaintiff Dustin Innis (“Innis”), a natural person residing in Las Vegas, Nevada, is

a sole proprietor of a carpet and upholstery cleaning business.
24.

Plaintiff Kelly Stalnaker (“Stalnaker”), a natural person presently residing in

Arizona but previously and at all applicable times residing in Ravenna, Ohio, was a sole
proprietor of a homemaker/personal care provider business.
25.

Plaintiff Jamie Jones (“Jones”), a natural person residing in Golden Valley,

Arizona, is a sole proprietor of a delivery service.
26.

Defendant Prestamos is a limited liability company organized under the laws of

the state of Arizona, having its principal place of business at 1024 E. Buckeye Road, Suite 270,
Phoenix, Arizona 85034, with additional offices in Tucson, Arizona, Las Vegas and Reno,
Nevada, and Santa Fe, New Mexico, according to its website. See Prestamos Locations,
available at Prestamos Locations (prestamosloans.org) (last visited May 1, 2022).
27.

Defendant CPLC is a corporation also organized under the laws of the state of

This Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because at least

one member of the proposed class is a citizen of a different state than defendants Prestamos and
CPLC; there are more than 100 members of the proposed class; and the aggregate amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(2)(A).
6

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

29.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 12 of 175

This Court also has jurisdiction over defendant Prestamos because Prestamos had

substantial and direct contacts in this District by virtue of its agreement to fund plaintiff
Pronsky’s PPP loan; by entering into PPP loan agreements with numerous other PPP borrowers
in this District; by committing to fund the PPP loans under the contractual loan agreements it
entered into with plaintiff Pronsky and numerous other PPP borrowers in this District; by its PPP
loan underwriting and review activities in connection with the PPP loans of borrowers in this
District; by obtaining PPP loan processing fees on PPP loans committed to borrowers in this
District; and by virtue of its communications and activities it undertook in this District and
concerning PPP applicants and borrowers in this District relating to PPP loans, PPP loan
forgiveness, interest on PPP loans and PPP loan processing fees. See SBA, Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) Report, Approvals through 5/31/2021, p. 7, available at
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/PPP_Report_Public_210531-508.pdf (last
visited May 1, 2022). Further, this case was filed on October 1, 2021 and, despite lodging
numerous other challenges, defendant Prestamos has not challenged personal jurisdiction and is
estopped from doing so now.
30.

More particularly, and for further detail, defendant Prestamos committed to fund

at least 10,553 separate SBA-approved PPP loans through May 31, 2021 for qualified borrowers
residing in this District alone, for total PPP loan proceeds of at least $166 million according to
the SBA’s own publicly available PPP loan data. See SBA, PPP FOIA, available at
https://data.sba.gov/dataset/ppp-foia (last visited May 1, 2022).
31.

Assuming that each such loan PPP loan generated loan processing fees of at least

$2,500.00 per loan, this means that defendant Prestamos obtained at least $26,382,500.00 in total

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 13 of 175

PPP loan fees on the backs of resident business owners located in this District (10,533 x
$2,500.00).
32.

In connection with each of the numerous PPP loan agreements and millions of

dollars in lender processing fees with borrowers in this District, defendant Prestamos
purposefully availed itself of substantial and direct business activity in this District sufficient to
subject itself to the personal jurisdiction of this Court.
33.

Further, for each such PPP loan, defendant Prestamos’s role was not limited to

entering into the standard form loan agreement contracts and funding the loans for Plaintiffs and
other putative class member borrowers. In addition, Prestamos’s role as the SBA-approved
lender of PPP loans required it to underwrite and review each PPP loan individually. According
to applicable regulations:
“The lender, however, must do some basic ‘underwriting.’ Specifically,
the PPP Regulations contain a section titled, “What do lenders have to do
in terms of loan underwriting?” [86 Fed. Reg.] at 3707–08. The
regulations enumerate four ‘underwriting’ steps:
(1)

confirm receipt of the borrower certifications in the Form 2483
application;

(2)

confirm receipt of documentation showing employment status of
the applicant or if a business, documents showing employees as of
February 2020;

(3)

confirm the historic payroll (if the applicant had employees) by
examining the documentation submitted; and

(4)

comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) or similar anti-money
laundering procedures, such as a customer identification program
(“COP”), designed to make sure the lender confirms the identity of
the applicant.

Id. In addition to the above steps, the lender was obligated to ‘review’ each application.
Id. at 3708 (‘Each lender’s underwriting obligation under the PPP is limited to the items
above and reviewing the ‘Paycheck Protection Borrower Application Form.’).”
8

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

34.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 14 of 175

Accordingly, this Court also has personal jurisdiction over defendant Prestamos

by virtue of the underwriting and review process that Prestamos necessarily had to do as to each
PPP borrower in this District, including but not limited to plaintiff Pronsky and the thousands of
additional PPP borrowers in this District.
35.

This Court has jurisdiction over defendant CPLC because CPLC controlled,

directed and participated in Prestamos’s conduct in PPP lending even though Prestamos was the
SBA-approved and qualified PPP lender; CPLC directed Prestamos to, and Prestamos in fact did,
“upstream” to CPLC hundreds of millions of dollars in PPP loan processing fees Prestamos
obtained from the PPP loans of Plaintiffs, class members and other borrowers as if CPLC and
Prestamos were one and the same company; CPLC referred to CPLC and Prestamos as “CPLC
Prestamos CDFI” and “CPLC PRESTAMOS LOAN PRODUCTS”; CPLC and Prestamos
shared senior executives and directors and overlapping websites that promoted each other;
Prestamos was at all times relevant CPLC’s wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary and
CPLC was Prestamos’s alter ego at all times relevant in connection with PPP lending; and
defendant Prestamos’s contacts in this District in connection with PPP lending and the claims
at issue are imputed to its corporate parent CPLC.
36.

Venue is proper in this judicial District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
Additional Factual Allegations
Background Concerning the
COVID-19 Pandemic and the PPP
37.

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19

outbreak a “pandemic.” Two days later, on March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national
emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
9

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

38.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 15 of 175

In response, on March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed the largest

economic stimulus package in the nation’s history -- the CARES Act. The CARES Act
amounted to over $2 trillion in aid, equivalent to roughly $6,000 per American, or 45% of all
federal government spending for 2019.
39.

The CARES Act was enacted to provide immediate assistance to individuals,

families, and businesses affected by the COVID-19 emergency.
40.

One facet of the CARES Act’s approach to economic relief was the PPP.

Recognizing the huge strain that the COVID-19 pandemic would likely impose on American
small businesses, the PPP initially allocated $349 billion for loans to small businesses, sole
proprietors, and nonprofit organizations, among others. These loans were intended to pay up to
eight weeks of payroll costs (including benefits) and could also be used to pay interest on
mortgages, rent, and utilities.
41.

PPP loans are guaranteed by the SBA, and the PPP provides for loan forgiveness

if the borrower demonstrates that the funds were used in compliance with PPP regulations.
42.

The PPP has received several legislative renewals, modifications, and extensions.

On April 24, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act, which provided additional funding and authority for the PPP. On June 5,
2020, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 was enacted, extending the
deferral period for PPP loans, among other provisions. On July 4, 2020, the PPP was further
amended to guarantee PPP loans to August 8, 2020. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid
to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (the “Economic Aid Act”) was
enacted, which further extended the PPP and allowed for the SBA to authorize second-draw PPP
loans through March 31, 2021, available to borrowers who already used their previous PPP loan

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 16 of 175

proceeds for permitted expenditures. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act was
signed into law, adding an additional $7.25 billion for PPP loans, bringing total appropriations
for the program to $813.7 billion. Finally, on March 30, 2021, the PPP Extension Act was
enacted, which extended the PPP application deadline to May 31, 2021, and gave the SBA until
June 30, 2021 to process loan applications.
43.

PPP loans are generally available to businesses in operation as of February 15,

2020 that had salaried employees, as well as self-employed individuals. Businesses receiving
PPP loans cannot have more than 500 employees and cannot be in bankruptcy. Further,
applicants are required to certify that the “current economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Currently, at least 60% of the
proceeds must be used for payroll costs. The entire amount of any PPP loan is subject to
forgiveness so long as the proceeds are used for eligible expenses.
44.

Under the Economic Aid Act, a PPP borrower is entitled to a second draw under

narrower conditions than its first draw. For example, a second draw borrower must have 300 or
fewer employees, must demonstrate that it sustained a certain percentage reduction in its gross
receipts compared to 2019, and must have used its entire first draw proceeds prior to
disbursement of its second draw proceeds. Second draw loans -- like first draw loans -- are also
subject to forgiveness.
45.

Given the anticipated volume of PPP loan applications, Congress provided for

PPP loan processing and funding through private lenders, with the SBA paying these lenders a
fee for each processed PPP loan.
46.

For their participation, the PPP originally provided that lenders would receive fees

at a rate of five percent for loans $350,000.00 or less, three percent for loans between

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 17 of 175

$350,000.00 and $2,000,000.00, and one percent for loans over $2,000,000.00. See SBA
Procedural Notice, Control No. 5000-20091 (Feb. 8, 2021), available at SBA Procedural Notice:
Second Updated PPP Processing Fee and 1502 Reporting (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021).
47.

To address institutional lenders’ neglecting of PPP loan applications from many

small businesses -- especially minority, underserved, veteran, and women-owned businesses -- in
favor of larger PPP loans, the Economic Aid Act added that lenders processing loans of up to
$50,000.00 would receive an increased fee of fifty percent or $2,500.00, whichever is less, per
PPP loan beginning December 27, 2020.
48.

As the vast majority of PPP loans -- even those to the smallest businesses and sole

proprietors -- exceeded $5,000.00, PPP lenders received a flat fee of $2,500.00 for virtually
every PPP loan less than $50,000.00.
49.

On February 8, 2021, the SBA issued a new notice setting forth the procedure for

how lenders would be paid PPP loan fees by the SBA. Id. To apply for a PPP loan, a prospective
borrower would have to submit a standardized Borrower Application Form issued by the SBA
(SBA Form 2483 for first time borrowers, and SBA Form 2483-SD for second draw borrowers),
together with relevant payroll documentation, to a lender. Once the lender reviewed and
approved the loan application, the lender would submit the application to the SBA for approval.
50.

Following SBA approval of an application, the SBA would issue a ten-digit loan

identification number (known as a “GP [General Program] number”) for the borrower’s loan.
51.

Provided that the borrower had executed the loan documents, the lender was

required to disburse the PPP funds within ten days of SBA approval and assignment of the loan
number.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

52.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 18 of 175

If the PPP borrower did not sign and submit all of the required documents to the

lender, then the PPP lender was required to report the loan and corresponding loan number as
cancelled no later than twenty days from the SBA approval and assignment of the loan number.
53.

Lenders’ compliance with the above PPP funding requirement was of paramount

importance to applicants and borrowers for reasons beyond their need to get the PPP loan
proceeds in a timely manner.
54.

Once the SBA approved a PPP loan and assigned it a loan number, the applicant

could not apply for a PPP loan with any other lender because the applicant could not make all of
the required certifications on another PPP loan application. Thus, once approved, the borrower
was essentially “stuck” with the lender to whom it applied for the PPP loan, meaning that the
borrower had to rely exclusively on the good faith of the lender to actually fund the loan.
55.

For both first draw and second draw PPP loans, a PPP loan applicant had to

certify that they had not and would not receive another first draw or second draw loan,
respectively.
56.

Since the lender’s obligation to fund a PPP loan ran from the date the SBA

approved and assigned a loan number, an applicant could not certify to another lender that they
would not receive the first loan even if the first lender had failed to timely fund the loan.
57.

Once a PPP loan was funded, the lender had ten days to submit an SBA Form

1502 to report to the SBA that the loan proceeds had been disbursed.
58.

After the lender submitted a Form 1502 reporting the PPP loan proceeds as

disbursed, the SBA would initiate payment of the processing fee to the lender.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

59.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 19 of 175

By submitting a Form 1502, the lender represented to the SBA that the PPP loan

had been fully funded. Further, a lender was required to update the SBA with monthly Form
1502 reports detailing each PPP loan’s status.
Background Concerning Defendants
60.

According to its website, Prestamos purports to be “your partner in economic

development, small business growth and quality job creation.” See Prestamos CDFI, available at
https://www.prestamosloans.org/ (last visited May 1, 2022). Also, according to its website,
Prestamos provides loan products and consulting services that “are designed for the emerging
business owner seeking funding.” Id.
61.

Prestamos is a Community Development Financial Institution (“CDFI”). CDFIs

were established as part of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement
Act of 1994. See What Are CDFIs, available at
https://www.cdfifund.gov/sites/cdfi/files/documents/cdfi_infographic_v08a.pdf (last visited
May 1, 2022). There are reportedly 1,000 CDFIs operating nationwide. Id.
62.

Prestamos is owned by defendant CPLC. Although CPLC purports to be a

domestic nonprofit corporation organized under Arizona law, it states on its website that “CPLC
owns and manages mission-driven for-profit subsidiaries, whose income helps to fund our
nonprofit charitable initiatives.” See CPLS, Who We Are, available at
https://cplc.org/about/about.php (last visited May 1, 2022).
63.

Further, as a nonprofit, CPLC is exempt from income tax provided it complies

with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (the “IRS”). CPLC also is obligated to file with the IRS each year a Form 990

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 20 of 175

Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, including a Schedule A Public Charity Status
and Public Support, among other things.
64.

CPLC’s 2019 Form 990 reported total revenues for the tax year beginning July 1,

2019 and ending June 30, 2020 of $87,628,824 compared to total revenue of $72,381,458 the
prior year; states that it paid $40,368,642 out in the period July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 for
salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits compared to $37,822,034 in the prior
period; paid $2,146,064 in grants and similar amounts in the period July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020
compared to $1,307,549 in the prior period; identified its President and CEO, David Adame
(“Adame”), as its principal officer; and is signed by its CFO, Alicia Nunez (“Nunez”). See
ProPublica, Chicanos Por La Causa Inc., Form 990 for period ending June 2020, available at
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_990/860227210/05_2021_prefixes_8490%2F860227210_202006_990_2021051818121912 (last visited May 1, 2022).
65.

Adame serves as CPLC’s President and CEO; Nunez serves as CPLC’s Executive

Vice President and CFO; and Max Gonzales (“Gonzales”) serves as CPLC’s Executive Vice
President and Strategy & Relationship Management. See CPLC, Leadership, available at
https://cplc.org/about/leadership.php (last visited May 1, 2022). In addition, and at all times
relevant, Adame, Gonzales and Nunez were the sole members of defendant Prestamos’s
governing Board of Directors. See Prestamos CDFI, About Us, available at
https://www.prestamosloans.org/about-prestamos/ (last visited May 1, 2022). CPLC’s Board
Members at large Jose Antonio Habre and Dan Hernandez also served on Prestamos’s
Community Advisory Board. Id.
66.

Further, Defendants shared not just common board of director membership but

also senior executives. For example, at all times relevant CPLC’s Executive Vice President

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 21 of 175

Economic Development was Jose Martinez (“Martinez”). See CPLC, Leadership, available at
https://cplc.org/about/leadership.php (last visited May 1, 2022). Accord Jose Martinez, LinkedIn,
available at https://www.linkedin.com/ in/jose-martinez-a7173b52/details/experience/ (last
visited May 1, 2022). Also at all times relevant, Martinez simultaneously served as President of
defendant Prestamos and actually signed in his capacity as President of Prestamos the standard
“Notice – No Oral Agreements” form that accompanied the notes Plaintiffs and other SBAapproved borrowers entered into with Prestamos to obtain their PPP loan agreements. See
Exhibit A attached hereto. In fact, Martinez’s email address used in connection with Prestamos’s
PPP lending was at his address at cplc.org.
67.

Defendants also promoted and referred to each other and held themselves out

publicly as being under common control in their websites and other publications. For example,
Prestamos’s website states that “Prestamos through its parent corporation, Chicanos Por La
Causa, Inc., has administered a variety of lending programs since 1980.” See Prestamos CDFI,
About Us, available at https://www.prestamosloans.org/about-prestamos/ (last visited May 1,
2022) (emphasis added). Similarly, in CPLC’s fiscal year 2019 – 2020 Annual Report, CPLC
repeatedly referred to the two Defendants as one, stating as follows:
CPLC Prestamos is filling a critical need to help small businesses keep the
lights on during COVID-19. CPLC Prestamos was formed to serve small
business in low-income communities and Latino and minority-owned
businesses. We provide capital to businesses that don’t have banking
relationships or might not qualify for loans. During the pandemic, CPLC
Prestamos is administering Paycheck Protection (PPP) loans to help small
businesses keep their doors open. We ramped up our operations, serving
more than 900 businesses and deploying $26 million in capital to save
almost 4,000 jobs.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 22 of 175

See CPLC FY19-20, Annual Report, at 7, available at
https://cplc.org/assets/files/publications/CPLC%20FY19-20%20Annual-Report.pdf (emphasis
added) (last visited May 1, 2022).
68.

CPLC also reflected its control over Prestamos in CPLC’s Consolidated Financial

Statements and Supplementary Information for the fiscal year July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 (the
“Financial Statements”). For example, CPLC stated in those Financial Statements as follows:
“Starting in May 2020, the Organization began participating in the Paycheck Protection
Program. Loan origination fees associated with PPP loans are deferred and amortized through the
earlier of SBA forgiveness obtained or through the term of the loan.” See ProPublica, Chicanos
Por La Causa Inc., at 18 available at
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/11175820211 (emphasis added) (last
visited May 1, 2022). Similarly, while later also stating in those Financial Statements that
defendant Prestamos “participated in” PPP lending, CPLC also stated in that very same
paragraph regarding PPP loan processing fees that, “[a]s of June 30, 2021, the Organization
received $314,260,826 from SBA, $5,086,196 was recognized as loan fee revenue and
$309,174,630 was recorded as deferred revenue.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added).
69.

Prestamos represents on its website that, as a CDFI, it is “dedicated to helping

economic growth in underserved areas by providing financing solutions to businesses and
economic development projects.” See Prestamos CDFI, available at
https://www.prestamosloans.org/ (last visited May 1, 2022).
70.

Since many sole proprietors’ PPP loans were in amounts less than $10,000.00,

PPP lenders like Prestamos were generating processing fees of only several hundred dollars for
making those loans in 2020.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

71.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 23 of 175

Pursuant to the new 2021 increased fee schedule, however, lenders like Prestamos

could count on collecting a $2,500.00 flat fee for nearly every PPP loan less than $50,000.00.
72.

Taking into consideration the incredible demand for PPP loans less than

$50,000.00 by sole proprietors, independent contractors, self-employed individuals and other
underserved small businesses together with the more lucrative fee schedule, Prestamos saw an
opportunity to obtain enormous amounts of lender fees by booking a high volume of PPP loans
under $50,000.00.
73.

CPLC and/or Prestamos reportedly contracted with Blue Acorn PPP, LLC (and/or

its affiliate FinCap, Inc. or their affiliates) (“Blueacorn”) in 2021 and potentially other third
parties to help identify borrowers to whom Prestamos could make PPP loans and assist in the
PPP paperwork process.
74.

Blueacorn was created in 2020.

75.

Blueacorn is neither a bank nor a lender and, therefore, cannot actually make PPP

76.

In general, only SBA section 7(a)-approved lenders were approved to make PPP

loans.

loans, together with any additional lenders determined by the Administrator of the SBA and the
Secretary of the U.S. Treasury to also be qualified to make such loans. See 86 FED. REG. 3692
(Jan. 14, 2021), available at Federal Register :: Business Loan Program Temporary Changes;
Paycheck Protection Program as Amended by Economic Aid Act (last visited May 1, 2022).
77.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated class member borrowers

contracted with Prestamos as the lender obligated to make the PPP loans.
78.

For its role in identifying potential borrowers and helping with the PPP

paperwork, Blueacorn reportedly received a part of the lender’s fees pursuant to a separate

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 24 of 175

contractual relationship between the lender and Blueacorn. See Stacy Crowley & Ella Koeze,
How Two Start-Ups Reaped Billions in Fees on Small Business Relief Loans, N.Y. Times,
June 27, 2021, Updated Oct. 11, 2021, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacorn-womply.html (last
visited May 1, 2022).
Defendants Exploit PPP Lending
79.

At all times relevant, CPLC and its senior executives, including Adame, Gonzales

and Nunez who simultaneously were also the sole members of Prestamos’s Board of Directors,
as well as Martinez who simultaneously served as CPLC’s Executive Vice President and
Prestamos’s President and other CPLC executives, controlled Prestamos, including Defendants’
plan for Prestamos to dramatically ramp up its PPP lending activity so that Defendants could be
enriched thereby.
80.

Defendants succeeded in that respect. In particular as noted above, Defendants

exploited the increased fees to be paid by the SBA on smaller PPP loans in 2021 by reportedly
having Prestamos agree to fund 494,415 PPP loans totaling over $7.6 billion in loan proceeds -more loans than any other lender, and more loans than Bank of America, PNC Bank, TD Bank
and Wells Fargo combined. See SBA, Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Report, Approvals
through 5/31/2021, p. 7, available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/202106/PPP_Report_Public_210531-508.pdf (last visited May 1, 2022).
81.

As a result, Prestamos reportedly generated nearly $1.2 billion in PPP loan fees in

2021. See Stacy Crowley & Ella Koeze, How Two Start-Ups Reaped Billions in Fees on Small
Business Relief Loans, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2021, Updated Oct. 11, 2021, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacorn-womply.html (last

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 25 of 175

visited May 1, 2022) (“Last year, Prestamos made $1.3 million for its lending. This year, it will
collect nearly $1.2 billion, according to a New York Times calculation of lenders’ fees based on
government data.”).
82.

Further, according to CPLC’s own Financial Statements, defendant Prestamos

upstreamed to CPLC some or all of the net PPP loan processing fees Prestamos obtained. See
ProPublica, Chicanos Por La Cause Inc., Consolidated Financial Statements, p.20 Year Ended
June 30, 2021, available at https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/11175820211
(last visited May 2, 2022) (“As of June 30, 2021, the Organization received $314,260,826 from
SBA, $5,086,196 was recognized as loan fee revenue and $309,174,630 was recorded as deferred
revenue.”) (emphasis added).
83.

Even though Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved PPP lender, CPLC

also blurred the distinction between it and Prestamos and referred to and touted the success of
Prestamos’s PPP lending as its own in CPLC’s own website, as follows:
“In 2021, CPLC Prestamos CDFI was named the #1 U.S. Small Business
Administration PPP lender by number of loans and the #3 lender by
dollar volume with $7.6 billion in approved loans with an average loan
amount of $15,526 serving 78% minority owned businesses.” (emphasis
added);
“CPLC Prestamos is an award-winning Community Development
Financial Institution (CDFI) …” (emphasis added); and
“CPLC PRESTAMOS LOAN PRODUCTS” (emphasis added)
See Chicanos Por La Causa, Small Business Lending, available at
https://cplc.org/econ/lending.php (last visited May 1, 2022).
84.

In sum, CPLC participated directly in Prestamos’s PPP lending even though

Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved lender; controlled and directed Prestamos’s
PPP lending activities through its common management and control and 100% ownership of
20

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 26 of 175

Prestamos; exploited Prestamos’s status as the SBA-approved PPP lender; enriched itself by
causing Prestamos to upstream to CPLC hundreds of millions of dollars in PPP loan processing
fees including on the backs of Plaintiffs and other class members whose SBA-approved PPP
loans Prestamos reported as funded to obtain the PPP loan processing fees but were, in fact, not
funded; and, in turn, improperly enriched itself and its leadership from a federally-funded
program designed to actually help small minority, women and other business putative class
member owners whose businesses were struggling amid the COVID-19 pandemic and whose
mission Defendants purported to serve.
85.

Adame even touted the success of the two companies’ PPP lending publicly in

To facilitate lending under the SBA’s PPP, the Federal Reserve supplied liquidity

to Prestamos and other participating financial institutions through term financing to be secured
by the PPP loans. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Paycheck Protection
Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF), available at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/ppplf.htm (last visited May 1, 2022).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

87.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 27 of 175

In particular, the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (“PPPLF”) was

authorized under § 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act “to facilitate lending by eligible borrowers
[i.e., PPP lenders] to small businesses under the [PPP]. … Under the Facility, the Federal
Reserve Banks (‘Reserve Banks’) will lend to eligible borrowers [i.e., PPP lenders] on a nonrecourse basis, taking PPP Loans as collateral.” See Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity
Facility Term Sheet, available at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20210625a1.pdf (last
visited May 1, 2022).
88.

Further, “[a]ll lenders that are eligible to originate PPP Loans are eligible to

borrow under the Facility.” Id.
89.

For Prestamos and other qualified CDFI PPP lenders, the lending Federal Reserve

Bank was the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Id.
90.

Only SBA-guaranteed PPP loans are eligible to serve as collateral for PPPLF

advances, and the principal amount advanced under the PPPLF was to be equal to the principal
amount of the PPP loan pledged to secure the extension of credit. Id.
91.

Prestamos received billions of dollars of advances through the PPPLF as specified

more fully below.
92.

In fact, although the PPP application period ended on May 31, 2021 and the life

cycle of a PPP loan application should only take a few business days, Prestamos continued to
receive huge advances through the PPPLF between June 30, 2021 and July 30, 2021, after the
deadline for processing loan applications.
93.

For example, on June 30, 2021 alone, Prestamos received PPPLF cash advances

of approximately $118,743,226.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

94.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 28 of 175

In particular, according to a report by the Federal Reserve to the U.S. Congress

dated September 13, 2021 “PPPLF Transaction-specific Disclosures (XLSX),” Prestamos
received the following specific cash advances from the PPPLF:
Date of Advance

Amount

2020-05-15

$839,761.76

2020-05-19

$6,047,880.04

2020-05-20

$862,834.00

2020-05-22

$1,156,497.62

2020-05-27

$416,800.54

2020-05-29

$696,356.87

2020-06-01

$492,218.22

2020-06-03

$244,555.74

2020-06-04

$559,762.54

2020-06-08

$11,242.95

2020-06-08

$559,314.27

2020-06-08

$63,848.04

2020-06-08

$614,343.47

2020-06-26

$177,591.04

2020-06-26

$221,991.60

2020-06-26

$198,670.00

2020-06-26

$285,888.69

2020-06-26

$103,249.00

2020-06-26

$348,119.55

2020-06-30

$210,223.83

2020-07-01

$303,478.31

2020-07-01

$486,363.72

2020-07-01

$829,175.81

2020-07-07

$1,639,353.02

2020-07-09

$1,070,316.28

2020-07-14

$320,769.72

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 29 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2020-07-14

$320,335.47

2020-07-31

$598,038.85

2020-07-31

$1,585,572.39

2020-07-31

$333,622.00

2020-08-11

$1,027,167.09

2020-08-11

$1,819,532.00

2020-08-11

$256,166.50

2020-09-22

$1,209,795.10

2020-09-23

$47,152.00

2020-09-23

$322,815.25

2020-09-23

$112,162.00

2020 Total

$26,392,965.28

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-01-29

$186,091.00

2021-02-04

$2,706,582.04

2021-02-08

$2,633,372.65

2021-02-09

$2,974,669.86

2021-02-18

$3,270,876.03

2021-02-18

$1,405,472.00

2021-02-23

$2,955,206.00

2021-02-26

$2,975,445.15

2021-03-10

$1,137,906.71

2021-03-10

$574,411.00

2021-03-18

$285,612.00

2021-03-18

$1,920,037.00

2021-03-24

$1,376,450.00

2021-03-24

$1,394,589.00

2021-04-05

$2,036,898.00

2021-04-14

$1,857,735.83

2021-04-14

$1,218,922.00
24

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 30 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-04-14

$2,080,722.00

2021-04-14

$549,184.00

2021-04-19

$2,781,743.00

2021-04-27

$2,385,498.00

2021-05-05

$542,247,559.00

2021-05-07

$977,283,838.00

2021-05-11

$219,875,856.00

2021-05-12

$11,638,792.00

2021-05-12

$15,011,946.00

2021-05-12

$22,711,165.00

2021-05-14

$261,721,437.00

2021-05-14

$71,807,843.00

2021-05-14

$9,724,231.00

2021-05-14

$5,800,825.00

2021-05-14

$1,394,114.00

2021-05-14

$3,236,837.00

2021-05-17

$2,820,014.00

2021-05-17

$2,000,798.00

2021-05-18

$3,013,786.00

2021-05-18

$3,094,488.00

2021-05-19

$752,007,807.00

2021-05-20

$24,508,694.00

2021-05-20

$129,048,483.00

2021-05-21

$383,962,452.00

2021-05-24

$553,643,404.00

2021-05-26

$287,698,867.00

2021-05-26

$78,487,436.00

2021-05-26

$21,918,317.00

2021-05-26

$6,212,247.00

2021-05-26

$8,109,147.00

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 31 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-05-28

$8,589,635.00

2021-05-28

$11,371,049.00

2021-05-28

$184,579,114.00

2021-06-02

$25,025,683.00

2021-06-02

$363,445,193.00

2021-06-03

$487,925,246.00

2021-06-04

$55,686,186.00

2021-06-08

$278,866,006.00

2021-06-08

$52,432,880.00

2021-06-09

$674,168,631.00

2021-06-10

$235,611,832.00

2021-06-15

$24,013,181.00

2021-06-15

$8,772,946.00

2021-06-15

$10,593,069.00

2021-06-15

$13,035,119.00

2021-06-15

$8,866,293.00

2021-06-17

$13,428,841.00

2021-06-17

$5,676,633.00

2021-06-18

$6,658,965.00

2021-06-18

$2,304,017.00

2021-06-18

$2,397,599.00

2021-06-18

$6,799,943.00

2021-06-18

$4,549,067.00

2021-06-21

$11,740,892.00

2021-06-22

$5,148,262.00

2021-06-24

$2,473,148.00

2021-06-24

$2,672,552.00

2021-06-24

$12,965,069.00

2021-06-24

$41,186,983.00

2021-06-24

$16,493,297.00

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 32 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-06-30

$7,453,648.00

2021-06-30

$110,650,628.00

2021-06-30

$638,950.00

2021-07-02

$41,664.00

2021-07-02

$435,987.00

2021-07-02

$540,429.00

2021-07-07

$329,417.00

2021-07-07

$62,496.00

2021-07-12

$149,699.00

2021-07-12

$176,781.00

2021-07-14

$7,871,678.00

2021-07-29

$20,832.00

2021-07-30

$598,787.00

2021 Total

$7,144,136,133.27

As alleged below, while Prestamos received over $7.1 billion from the PPPLF in

2021 alone, Prestamos unjustifiably failed to disburse PPP loan funds approved by the SBA to
Plaintiffs and numerous other SBA-approved borrower members of the proposed class.
96.

Prestamos failed to disburse the proceeds of class member approved loans despite

having actually received the unfunded PPP loan proceeds from the PPPLF and other sources.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Marshall’s PPP Loan
97.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Marshall was, and continues to

be, in the business of providing in-home healthcare in the Sacramento, California area.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

98.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 33 of 175

Due to the pandemic, Marshall was not able to provide in-home care with the

same frequency and, as a result, lost significant income.
99.

On or about April 21, 2021, Marshall applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Marshall submitted all requested documentation and information, including but not limited to the
standard form Note and accompanying documents that all class member borrowers similarly
submitted to Prestamos.
100.

Plaintiff Marshall and class members formed binding and enforceable agreements

with Prestamos when they completed and submitted the Note and other applicable accompanying
documents to Prestamos.
101.

In particular, the Note also included an Additional and Correction Documents

Agreement (Errors and Omissions Agreement) (the “Additional Agreement”) between Prestamos
and plaintiff Marshall; a Business Purpose Statement; a Notice - No Oral Agreements bearing the
signature of Prestamos’s President Jose Martinez (“Martinez”) and plaintiff Marshall; a Written
Consent of Governing Body form for Marshall to represent that she is authorized to receive the
loan and on which Prestamos may rely; an IRS W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number
and Certification; and an Information and Bank Account Certification and Authorization form
identifying the bank or other account to which Prestamos would send the funds (collectively, the
“Loan Documents”).
102.

On or about April 22, 2021, the SBA approved Marshall’s PPP loan application

and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8282208801).
103.

Marshall was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $7,915.00.

104.

The Note identified the SBA loan number and amount, defendant Prestamos as

the lender and plaintiff Marshall as the borrower; set forth payment terms, potential events of

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 34 of 175

default, Prestamos’s rights in the event of default, and other terms and conditions; and provided
the terms for plaintiff Marshall to repay the loan to Prestamos if it was not forgiven, among other
things.
105.

On April 29, 2021, Marshall signed and returned the Loan Documents in order to

obtain the $7,915.00 PPP loan.
106.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents and multiple additional attempts to obtain the loan proceeds, Marshall never received
the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
107.

Marshall also took additional steps to obtain her SBA-approved loan. For

example, on August 2, 2021, Marshall contacted her local SBA office about Prestamos’s failure
to fund her PPP loan.
108.

Similarly, on August 3, 2021, Marshall emailed the SBA to again pursue funding

of her PPP loan.
109.

On August 3, 2021, the SBA office responded and provided Marshall with the

following information about her PPP loan:
Alicia Marshall West Sacramento CA Amount $7,915 Status Disbursed Current
Loan 82822088-01
110.

App 29343623

Funded 04/22/2021[.]

Marshall also continued her attempts to collect the PPP loan proceeds directly

with Prestamos. For example, on September 4, 2021, Marshall emailed Prestamos’s President
Martinez stating that “I was SBA approved on April 22nd 2021 and I signed a promissory note
with you on April 29th 2021”; that “I understand there is a lot of fraud going on but my business
is legitimate”; that “I don’t understand why my loan was approved money was sent and now its
cancelled”; that “I would appreciate if you can explain this to me or look into it and see what

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 35 of 175

went wrong”; and that “I would hope that you being president of a rapidly growing respected
business would not want any of your customers to have a negative experience dealing with your
company so I have faith that you will be able to resolve this issue promptly!”
111.

Although the SBA’s records reported that plaintiff Marshall’s PPP loan had

actually been funded, Marshall never received any PPP loan proceeds despite her repeated
attempts to actually get funded.
112.

The SBA’s record of the alleged disbursement of Marshall’s loan proceeds was

presumably based on data Prestamos provided to the SBA.
113.

Thus, while Prestamos agreed to extend credit to Marshall by identifying itself as

her lender in the Note -- that is, fund her SBA-approved loan -- Prestamos never actually
extended credit to Marshall because it failed to fund her PPP loan.
114.

In fact, on September 21, 2021, the SBA sent an email to plaintiff Marshall

stating that she is eligible to apply “for PPP Direct Forgiveness because your lender has opted in
and you have a PPP loan amount of $150,000 or less.”
115.

Despite the SBA’s September 21, 2021 email inviting plaintiff Marshall to apply

for loan forgiveness and Marshall’s repeated attempts to get funding, however, plaintiff Marshall
never received any PPP loan proceeds.
116.

Having properly completed and returned all required Loan Documents, plaintiff

Marshall and all class members were entitled to timely disbursement of their PPP loan funds.
117.

Having not timely disbursed plaintiff Marshall’s and other class members’ PPP

loan funds, Prestamos was obligated to timely and properly cancel their PPP loan requests.
118.

Prestamos has neither disbursed PPP loan funds to plaintiff Marshall and the

members of the class nor canceled their loan requests.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

119.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 36 of 175

Prestamos’s failure to fund the loan requests of plaintiff Marshall and the class or

timely cancel them after failing to properly fund the loans also prevented plaintiff Marshall and
the members of the class from pursuing their loan requests with another PPP lender.
120.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Marshall’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Marshall of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her in-home healthcare
business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
121.

Prestamos’s failure to disburse PPP loan funds to plaintiff Marshall and the

members of the class after agreeing to do so, has left plaintiff Marshall and the class members
potentially obligated by way of the parties’ contractual agreements set forth in the Loan
Documents to repay funds they never received.
122.

Plaintiff Marshall and other members of the class have also been injured in that

the loan forgiveness requires affirming, under threat of criminal penalty, that PPP loan funds
were used in a particular manner and plaintiff Marshall and other members of the class cannot
affirm the nature of the use of funds they never received.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Pronsky’s PPP Loan
123.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Pronsky was, and continues to be,

in the barbeque catering business in the Reading, Pennsylvania area.
124.

Plaintiff Pronsky was, and is, in the business of operating a barbeque catering

business in and around Reading, Pennsylvania.
125.

Due to the pandemic, Pronsky’s catering business lost significant income.

126.

Accordingly, in or about May 2021, Pronsky also applied for a PPP loan.

127.

On May 27, 2021, the SBA approved Pronsky’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 4628549010).
31

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 37 of 175

128.

Pronsky was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $8,332.00.

129.

Also on May 27, 2021, Pronsky received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying additional Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had also received.
130.

Additionally, on May 27, 2021, Pronsky signed and returned the Loan Documents

in order to obtain the $8,332.00 PPP loan.
131.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Pronsky never received the proceeds of his SBA-approved PPP loan.
132.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Pronsky’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Pronsky

of funds that would have assisted in the operation of his catering business and resulted in lost
opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Townsend’s PPP Loan
133.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Townsend was, and continues to

be, in the business of making and selling hair care products in the San Bernadino, California
area.
134.

Due to the pandemic, Townsend’s hair care business lost significant income.

135.

Accordingly, on or about May 6, 2021, Townsend applied for a PPP loan.

136.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Townsend’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 4476579008).
137.

Townsend was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $20,012.00.

138.

On or about May 27, 2021, Townsend received the same form PPP loan

promissory Note and accompanying additional Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had also
received.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

139.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 38 of 175

Additionally, on May 27, 2021, Townsend signed and returned the Loan

Documents in order to obtain the $20,012.00 PPP loan.
140.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Townsend never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
141.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Townsend’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Townsend of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her hair care products
business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Holland’s PPP Loan
142.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Holland was, and continues to be,

in the real estate business in the Greenwich, Connecticut area.
143.

Due to the pandemic, Holland’s real estate business lost significant income.

144.

In or about May 2021, Holland applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Holland

submitted all requested documentation and information.
145.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Holland’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 1427199001).
146.

Holland was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $20,832.00.

147.

On May 19, 2021, Holland received the same form PPP loan promissory Note and

accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
148.

Also on May 19, 2021, Holland signed and returned the Loan Documents in order

to obtain the $20,832.00 PPP loan.
149.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Holland never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

150.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 39 of 175

Prestamos failed to fund the loan despite additional steps by Holland to obtain the

PPP loan proceeds. For example, Holland wrote an email to Prestamos’s President Martinez on
August 13, 2021 stating that “I applied in May, was approved and signed the promissory note 19
May”; that “[t]he SBA website shows my funds disbursed as of May”; and that “I am writing to
you to request your assistance in this matter.” Neither Prestamos nor Martinez responded to
Holland’s August 13 email.
151.

Holland also sought the assistance of the SBA to obtain funding, and the SBA, in

turn, similarly requested the assistance of Prestamos and its President Martinez. Specifically,
according to a September 20, 2021 email from SBA employee John Xu to Martinez:
“Subject: Nancilee Realty Greenwich CT
Hi Jose,
Ms. Holland contacted SBA regarding her PPP. She stated that the
application was approved but she did not receive the funds.
I found your name under her loan application, and the funds were
disbursed currently in our system as follows.
Can you or your staff look into the case and get it back to her?
Nancilee Realty
Greenwich CT
Amount $20,832
Status Disbursed Client
Loan 14271990-01
App 30585546
Funded 05/13/2021.”
152.

Holland still did not receive any response from Prestamos or Martinez in response

to her inquiries.
153.

On October 1, 2021 -- the very day this lawsuit was filed -- Holland faxed a letter

to Martinez stating as follows:

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 40 of 175

“1 October, 2021
VIA FACSIMILE TO 602-[ Fax no. omitted]

JOSE MARTINEZ
PRESTAMOS CDFI LLC
1024 E. Buckeye Rd #270
Phoenix, AZ 85034
RE: SBA Loan No. 1427199001
Mr. Martinez:
As evidenced by the attached documents, I was approved by the SBA for a
PPP loan in May, 2020. Due to the issues outlined in the email send [sic]
to you in August, I have still not received my funds. The SBA records
show this payment was disbursed in May.
I have not received a response from you to my email of August 13th. Nor
have you responded to the emails from Mr. Xu of the SBA. Kindly
provide the courtesy of a response. I can be reached at [tel. no. omitted].
Nancilee Holland”
154.

Despite Holland’s multiple additional attempts to obtain the loan proceeds,

Prestamos failed to fund Holland’s SBA-approved PPP loan.
155.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Holland’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Holland

of funds that would have assisted in the operation of her real estate brokerage business and
resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Owsley’s PPP Loan
156.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Owsley was, and continues to be,

in the construction business in the El Dorado Springs, Missouri area.
157.

Due to the pandemic, Owsley’s construction business lost significant income.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

158.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 41 of 175

In or about May 2021, Owsley applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Owsley

submitted all requested documentation and information.
159.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Owsley’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 4680379004).
160.

Owsley was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $6,250.00.

161.

On or about May 27, 2021, Owsley received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
162.

On May 27, 2021, Owsley signed and returned the Loan Documents in order to

obtain the $6,250.00 PPP loan.
163.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Owsley never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
164.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Owsley’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Owsley

of funds that would have assisted in the operation of her construction business and resulted in
lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Ahmadou’s PPP Loan
165.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Ahmadou was, and continues to

be, in the home healthcare business in the Evanston, Illinois area.
166.

Due to the pandemic, Ahmadou’s construction business lost significant income.

167.

In or about May 2021, Ahmadou applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Ahmadou submitted all requested documentation and information.
168.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Ahmadou’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8166799007).
169.

Ahmadou was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $20,832.00.
36

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

170.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 42 of 175

In May 2021, Ahmadou received the same form PPP loan promissory Note and

accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
171.

Also in May 2021, Ahmadou signed and returned the Loan Documents in order to

obtain the $20,832.00 PPP loan.
172.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Ahmadou never received the proceeds of his SBA-approved PPP loan.
173.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Ahmadou’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Ahmadou of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of his home healthcare
business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Dervin’s PPP Loan
174.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Dervin was, and continues to be,

in the janitorial business in the Lynwood, Washington area.
175.

Due to the pandemic, Dervin’s janitorial business lost significant income.

176.

In or about May 2021, Dervin applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Dervin

submitted all requested documentation and information.
177.

On or about May 14, 2021, the SBA approved Dervin’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 1895529005).
178.

Dervin was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $8,385.00.

179.

On May 19, 2021, Dervin received the same form PPP loan promissory Note and

accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
180.

Also on May 19 2021, Dervin signed and returned the Loan Documents in order

to obtain the $8,385.00 PPP loan.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

181.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 43 of 175

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Dervin never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
182.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Dervin’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Dervin of

funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her janitorial business and resulted in
lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Henderson’s PPP Loan
183.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Henderson was, and continues to

be, in the women’s clothing business in the Macomb, Michigan area.
184.

Due to the pandemic, Henderson’s women’s clothing business lost significant

income.
185.

In or about April 2021, Henderson applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Henderson submitted all requested documentation and information.
186.

On or about April 22, 2021, the SBA approved Henderson’s PPP loan application

and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8614908807).
187.

Henderson was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $1,875.00.

188.

On April 29, 2021, Henderson received the same form PPP loan promissory Note

and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
189.

Also on April 29, 2021, Henderson signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $1,875.00 PPP loan.
190.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Henderson never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

191.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 44 of 175

Prestamos’s failure to fund Henderson’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Henderson of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her clothing business
and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Innis’s PPP Loan
192.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Innis was, and continues to be, in

the carpet and upholstery cleaning business in the Las Vegas, Nevada area.
193.

Due to the pandemic, Innis’s carpet and upholstery cleaning business lost

significant income.
194.

In May 2021, Innis applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Innis submitted all

requested documentation and information.
195.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Innis’s PPP loan application and assigned it

a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8207338903).
196.

Innis was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $10,625.00.

197.

On May 26, 2021, Innis received the same form PPP loan promissory Note and

accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
198.

Also on May 26, 2021, Innis signed and returned the Loan Documents in order to

obtain the $10,625.00 PPP loan.
199.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Innis never received the proceeds of his SBA-approved PPP loan.
200.

Prestamos failed to fund Innis’s PPP loan despite Innis’s repeated additional

attempts to try to get his SBA-approved PPP loan actually funded. For example, in an October 1,
2021 email to Litza Menendez (“Menendez”), Loan Servicing Specialist for Prestamos and its
parent CPLC, Innis stated as follows:
39

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 45 of 175

“hi so what’s the word!? I’m getting emails from the SBA now about
applying for loan forgiveness. I remember you telling me you will
probably have to send me a prepaid card.”
201.

Further, in another email to Menendez on October 12, 2021, Innis stated as

follows (emphasis in original):
“Hello Litza, I’m writing you to give you one more chance to disperse my
money before I file a lawsuit against you. The SBA website is
CURRENT!!! I just got off the phone with them and was told IT IS
CURRENT and that my funds are in someone’s BANK ACCOUNT
THAT ISN’T MINE …… IF YOU THINK IM GOING TO JUST LIE
DOWN AND LET THIS HAPPEN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE U ARE
HIGHLY MISTAKEN……. I knew I wasn’t stupid and did my research
before even contacting you and that your statements were FALSE….. once
again the SBA website IS CURRENT AND SHOWS ME STILL
FUNDED AND THAT MONEY IS IN SOMEONES BANK ACCOUNT
NOT AFFILIATED WITH ME OR BLUE ACORN OR
PRESTAMOS….. DO THE RIGHT THING[.]”
202.

Despite even these additional attempts, Prestamos has failed to fund Innis’s loan.

203.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Innis’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Innis of

funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of his carpet and upholstery cleaning
business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Stalnaker’s PPP Loan
204.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Stalnaker was in the

homemaker/personal care provider business in the Ravenna, Ohio area, where she continued to
reside at all applicable times.
205.

Due to the pandemic, Stalnaker’s homemaker/personal care provider business lost

significant income.
206.

In or about April 2021, Stalnaker applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Stalnaker submitted all requested documentation and information.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

207.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 46 of 175

Also in April 2021, the SBA approved Stalnaker’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 1641908909).
208.

Stalnaker was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $9,052.00.

209.

On April 29, 2021, Stalnaker received the same form PPP loan promissory Note

and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
210.

Also on April 29, 2021, Stalnaker signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $9,052.00 PPP loan.
211.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Stalnaker never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
212.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Stalnaker’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Stalnaker of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her homemaker/personal
care provider business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Jones’s PPP Loan
213.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Jones was, and continues to be, in

the delivery service business in the Golden Valley, Arizona area.
214.

Due to the pandemic, Jones’s delivery service lost significant income.

215.

In or about May 2021, Jones applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Jones

submitted all requested documentation and information.
216.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Jones’s PPP loan application and assigned

it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8899718910).
217.

Jones was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $4,130.00.

218.

On or about May 30, 2021, Jones received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
41

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

219.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 47 of 175

Also on May 30, 2021, Jones signed and returned the Loan Documents in order to

obtain the $4,130.00 PPP loan.
220.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Jones never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
221.

In fact, on October 14, 2021 and again on November 2, 2021, the SBA sent

emails to plaintiff Jones stating that she is “eligible for PPP Direct Forgiveness because your
lender has opted in any you have a PPP loan amount of $150,000 OR LESS.”
222.

Despite the SBA’s October 14, 2021 and November 2, 2021 emails inviting

plaintiff Jones to apply for loan forgiveness, plaintiff Jones never received any PPP loan
proceeds.
223.

As Jones summarized in a complaint she filed with the BBB on November 4,

2021:
“I filed and was approved for a PPP loan on April 25th 2021for the amount
of $4130 waited a month started sending emails with no responses besides
the automated ticket creation and a few emails stating that the support
email was no longer active then received loan documents on May 26, 2021
it has been non-stop back and forth with no actual responses or funding
received and now I’m receiving emails from the SBA to file for
forgiveness on a loan I never received”
224.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Jones’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Jones of

funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her delivery service business and
resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 48 of 175

Prestamos’s Failure to Fund Other
SBA-Approved Class Member
Borrower PPP Loans
225.

Numerous other similarly situated borrowers have been damaged by Prestamos’s

failure to fund their SBA-approved PPP loans and have complained about their experiences to
the BBB and via social media sites.
226.

For example, the BBB’s website identifies a number of complaints against

Prestamos: 2
a.

“I was notified on June 2, 2021 that my loan would be funded by
Prestamos CDFI, LLC within 3-6 business days. … I have never been
funded.” (August 2, 2021 post);

“I was approved a PPP loan in May and SBA has [it] that the loan was
disbursed … in May and I haven’t received a dime, cannot reach anyone
via phone and all emails take me around in circles.” (July 12, 2021 post);

“I was later texted approval for funding on 6/3/2021. Since then I have not
received the funds. When I check online support it says DENIED. I am
frustrated as to what is going on? I reached out to support online email and
text but no change in status. When I checked public records online it says
my name address and funding amount as if I have been funded already.
Please help!” (July 12, 2021) (emphasis in original);

“Its been over 25+ business days since date of signing loan docs. … On
the sba ppp website (capital access financial system) [it says] that my
funds HAVE been dispersed [sic] by Prestamos CDFI, LLC which isn’t
true because I definitely don’t have the funds. Since Prestamos CDFI,
LLC is my lender I hold them responsible.” (July 9, 2021) (emphasis in
original);

Prestamos “works with Blueacorn and actually is the lender who signed
off on the loan that was meant for me for PPP. … They keep saying
Blueacorn is the company that has your money despite my having entered
into a contract with Prestamos. They are continuing to accrue interest for
over a month now that I owe on money I never received.” (July 7, 2021);

Emphasis is in the original in this Complaint unless otherwise noted or the context otherwise
requires.
43

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 49 of 175

Prestamos “is extremely I mean extremely hard to get in contact with. …
I’ve called EVERY number on their site and have gotten in contact with
no one.” (July 6, 2021) (emphasis in original); and

“I applied for the *** PPP Loan online with BlueAcorn (lender servicing
provider) in May 2021. *** approved by PPP Loan on May 26, 2021 and
Prestamos CDFI, LLC is the lender and my loan should have been
disbursed within 10 days of my *** approval date or 20 days the latest. It
has been more than 1 month and I have not received my funds. I sent
multiple emails to Prestamos and also left voicemail messages within the
past 2 weeks, but Prestamos has not responded at all. My loan status is
active but not fully disbursed according to the ProPublicas online
information which claimed to come from ***. I will not be responsible to
pay back a loan I never received. I have not canceled my loan either and
need it desperately for my business and to support my 2 sons.” (July 2,
2021).

See BBB, Prestamos CDFI LLC, available at Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better
Business Bureau® Profile (bbb.org) (last visited May 1, 2022).
227.

Similarly, according to complaints posted publicly on the Internet:
a.

“WHERE IS OUR MONEY!??????? ALL THE OBSTACLES & HOOPS
SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE SINCE APRIL
WAITING ON WHAT NOW‼⁉BLUEACORN & PRESTAMOS HAVE
BROKEN THEIR PROMISES!!!! WE NEED A RESPONSE NOW.”
(August 8, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueAcornPrestamos/comments/p1eyr2/where_i
s_our_money_all_the_obstacles_hoops/;

“I’m pissed I signed 5/27 and still nothing no emails no nothing I call
prestamos they say call blue acorn I call them they say the same shit
somebody help me before I lose my entire business please!” (July 2, 2021)
Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueAcornPrestamos/comments/occrqy/im_piss
ed_i_signed_527_and_still_nothing_no/;

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 50 of 175

https://www.reddit.com/r/Blueacorn/comments/n5dk8y/prestamos_signers
_427430/;
d.

“I was approved 5/26, signed documents 6/2 my lender is Prestamos as
well. Haven’t heard anything from them & I opted in for the dash card as
well. Called them to see if my card was shipped I sat on hold for 2 hours
& they disconnected my call smh.” (June 28, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/EIDLPPP/comments/o19x77/has_anyone_who_
signed_on_62_been_funded_through/;

“Has anyone who signed on 6/2 been funded through blue acorn? My
lender is Prestamos and I opted in for the dash card (which I still haven’t
received). I was approved 5/29 and signed 6/2. I’m getting a bit
discouraged, but trying to keep the faith. Time are HARD.” (June 16,
2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/EIDLPPP/comments/o19x77/has_anyone_who_
signed_on_62_been_funded_through/;

“BLUEACORN/ JUNE SIGNERS/PRESTAMOS / REJECTED FUNDS/
UBI/ OPT FOR DASHCARD Can someone share how long was their
experience when funds were rejected by your bank. Dave’s banking
rejected/returned my funds on 06/14 how long before I’ll receive an email
to opt for dash card. I have chatted, message them on Twitter and put in
multiple tickets with support still no luck no email just automated
responses from support and live chat representative just tell me to contact
support which is a dead end. Will I still get funded or will this process be a
long experience? Seems like it’s already been a long time I’m just over it
at this point! Somebody please help.” (July 12, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/EIDLPPP/comments/oitaff/blueacornjune_signe
rsprestamosrejected/;

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 51 of 175

LAWYER UP, BECAUSE THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR
AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, which pays 3X damages
(triple damages). These companies are betting on us not being legitimate
business owners, and not being able to prove that we are, and moreover,
scared to get the authorities involved.” (June 15, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/comments/o0qcxv/blue_acorn_presta
mos_waiting_until_20_days_passed/;
h.

“So she created a ticket and said she couldnt tell me what the error was
until they reached out to me. Not sure if I need to verify questions like
everyone has been talking about and I got lucky to ask them now or else I
would never come across it because they wont tell you or email you about
it. Or there really is an error which I guess I will find out till they tell me.”
(May 5, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/comments/n3x0zj/blueacorn_if_you_
got_your_loan_from_prestamos/; and

“Had the same error issue had to resend my ID as well as answer
verification questions, originally signed on the evening of the 28th, my
issue is the never reached out me about it I had to reach out and ask them,
hopefully that all I need to do����” (May 5, 2021). Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/comments/n3x0zj/blueacorn_if_you_
got_your_loan_from_prestamos/.

Cody Brooks
November 6, 2021
“Approved, funds disbursed, prestamos and blueacorn said they weren’t
able to approve me, federalpaygo site shows this ppp loans been disbursed
to me but haven’t received anything and the only thing that was on my
mind was how shi**y it’d be to not only never receive the funds but to
have to pay it back as well along with interest so I did how I felt best after
Prestamos underwriter said I have a an email confirming I don’t have
responsibility for the funds and went ahead and applied for the forgiveness
… prestamos accepted it and sent it off to the sba which was fully remitted
by the sba. Can’t apply for forgiveness unless u were approved and funds
were disbursed.. I’ve tried speaking with blueacorn and Prestamos several
times stating I have all the documentation needed for this from the
beginning to the promissory note to “disbursement and forgiveness” they
haven’t replied back anything but forward what I’ve sent them back to me.
Literally took out a loan from some close friends and family in the amount
of the ppp loan to cover payroll and expenses and still haven’t received
anything yet when I was suppose to have it in May 2021.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 52 of 175

Kirt McReynolds
November 2, 2021
“Funds sent back to prestamos and haven’t recieved a dime since..
approved in May”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Judy Padilla
October 31, 2021
“I was funded and my bank returned it it’s been funded since June 14 but I
still don’t have it”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Nikki Dailey
October 30, 2021
“I was also approved by Prestamos CDFI, then denied and never received
funds and SBA is requesting that I apply for forgiveness. They
continuously made up fictitious information regarding the inability to fund
my loan need to join this class action law suit”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Anthonia Johnson

October 27, 2021

“Was approved by prestmos than denied never funded now being asked to
apply for loan forgiveness on a loan I never got”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
o.

Susan Hart
October 28, 2021
“Please include me , was approved and never funded and have even be
approved for forgiveness.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Kristin Dailey
October 27, 2021
“Stole my loan my business is about to bankrupt as well how do I add
myself to the class action law suit prestamos cdfi had me sign for loan but
didn’t give it to me”
47

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 53 of 175

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
q.

Danny Shields
October 21, 2021
“I am actually about to be interviewed next week for a follow up piece to
BlueAcorn/Prestamos PPP loan article that I read that infuriated me so
much I reached out to the reporter and she is doing a follow up article
based on the massive number of us who were swindled by these
organizations. I too had my signed and approved loan w/ Prestamos and
had my money returned after I was approved and that was keystone issue
that probably links each and everyone of us, the money got returned. Than
instead of standing by Blueacorns whole oh if you are SBA approved,
your funds are earmarked and set aside for you, that was not the case. I
had an assistant of my states SBA representative call me one afternoon
and in a profanity laced provision of facts, advised me of the whole
situation and how they simply moved beyond those unfortunate enough to
have funds returned and continued funding as many as they could.
Hopefully that is the case and they didnt just simply steal the money. But
either way, I am owed money and I have been waiting and aching for this
process of a class action to start, ever since I was blatantly professing to
Blueacorn and Prestamos that it was coming and when I was trying to
spread awareness on Reddit to those naive enough to think this wasnt the
case. Now I see they recently just had mass denials for all those who
continued to submit tickets wondering where their approved loan was in
this shady process. It’s disgusting. I need what I am owed and much more
for the mental anguish and the fact that this was a company federally
backed and advocated who not only didnt do what they claimed but did it
to a certain segment of the populace that at the time were specifically
being targeted to receive this assistant and everyone else was cut off since
their was such a dire need for it amongst the lower classes. All these other
fraudsters and unscrupulous individuals were having a free for all in being
allowed to abuse this program, and when I legitimately provided all
approved and required documentation, I get the third degree and am
denied after having been approved by Blueacorn, a company that
perpetrated fraud outright initially, and now say they are denying me after
doing a secondary review, a review that was done by the SBA and
approved and not within their purview to even attempt. Hopefully this
lawsuit goes after Blueacorn just as much as Prestamos, because you
couldnt even reach Prestamos. Only lender I’ve ever heard of that defers
to the middleman for all servicing, questions or funding after they signed a
contract between myself them and the SBA. Ridiculous. So glad this is
coming to the light because their are hundreds of questions that I demand
be answered!”

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 54 of 175

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
r.

Shannon Black

October 19, 2021

“Please include me as well. I too was approved a loan from Prestomos and
still haven’t received payment. SBA sent me an email informing me that I
can now apply for forgiveness on the loan I never received. According to
their records loan was dispersed 6/2/21. I am deviated to learn that the
lender has done this to hundreds of thousands of struggling Americans and
their families fraudulently using this crisis to steal from the ones who need
it the most and the U.S. Government whom intended funds to quickly
reach businesses in greatest need.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
s.

Candace Cook

October 18, 2021

“I had prestamos as a lender too and they never funded my ppp loan
although I was approved”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
t.

Angela Joya

October 16, 2021

“Yes please add me”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
u.

Dustin Estep

November 22, 2021

“This is the same exact thing that Happened to me. It was May when
approved and disbursed. As of today im still showing on the sba website
as fully dusbursed and current”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Kimberly

Filed 05/02/22

Page 55 of 175

November 13, 2021

“I filed a complaint back in April when I signed paper work for funding
they sent to my account but then withdrew it some how saying payment
ledger and I was told they would send me a prepaid card and it never came
and when I tried to speak to some one they wanted my tax return again
and then told me I wasn’t approved but it says I received it and I looked at
my paper work and it has another receiptiant named Jose [M]artinez and I
have absolutely no idea who that is I tried to get help from the SBA they
told me that I had to get ahold of the lender and that is impossible”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
w.

Jacqueline Smith

November 12, 2021

“I was approved and given an SBA number on May 20th 2021. My bank
rejected my funds on June 3rd 2021. On August 30th I opted for the dash
prepaid card and I’m still waiting. I have filed several tickets with blue
acorn I have contacted the SBA twice and they have noted and it escalated
my account. And here it is now November 12th and I am still waiting I
just keep getting told to be patient.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
x.

Jessica Moore

November 11, 2021

“I was approved and received a SBA loan number may 31st 2021 but
never recieved a dime. After months of trying to get my money they
randomly sent me an ensul stating I was now denied and stated nothing
else, even though I was already approved and funds had already been sent
but supposedly my bank sent them back and all I needed to do was update
new banking info but this took them 2 months but instead of resending to
my new bank info they said I was denied but to this day I still have an
SBA approved loan number and SBA still shows my loan was disbursed to
me yet I havent seen a dime. Nobody will get back to me from either blue
acorn, Prestamos or SBA yet I get continuous emails about being
approved for loan forgiveness on a loan I never got. This is ridiculous.
Someone help!”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Jessica Moore

Filed 05/02/22

Page 56 of 175

December 1, 2021

“Oh and up to date now. Prestamos approved my loan forgiveness and
SBA processed it and paid them for a loan I NEVER RECEIVED! I
contacted them and told them if I was denied after being given an SBA
loan number and money being sent to me then returned to lender then why
did the lender approve my forgiveness for a loan they never paid me and
then the SBA approved it and sent the lender the money for my loan that I
NEVER RECIEVED?!?! This is absolutely insane! Idk what to do now.
I’ve been approved and forgiven for a loan i haven’t seen a dime of ??!?”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
z.

Jacqueline Schementi

November 10, 2021

“Yes. Same scenario here, but with different lender. Called SBA who said
I was fine and should have gotten the disbursement. Even set up in SBA
system”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
aa.

Asia Adoibrahim

November 8, 2021

“Yes I’ll was approve thru blue acorns was suppose[d] to be funded by
prestamos they told me to reverify I did. Then they just put me on hold
could reach any one. Just email …told me. Their working hard to. Get me
my funds and that the loan were sent back ! my bank has no log of that
actually happening. Then they. Basically blocked me from the site all SBA
sites and. Or .gov sites say funded. I applied for forgiveness I was
approved. How is that possible That means the funds were supplied and I
never got anything. And I emails saying all of this. And me looking for the
location of the loan. Which in long. Drawn out. Ordeal they then stated
that they. We’re now denying such loan. For technical reasons or
something yet u approved forgiveness I want answers”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

bb.

Document 37

Melissa Estores

Filed 05/02/22

Page 57 of 175

November 9, 2021

“My experience was almost identical to yours. The livelihood of my
business was balancing in the hands of BlueAcorn and Prestamos.
Between BlueAcorn and the automated responses to the “tickets” made
and Prestamos and their phone tag, I wasted valuable time. Time that I
cannot reverse. Time that I should have been able to seek financial help
elsewhere. Shame on you Prestamos for victimizing the community that
you claim to support. Your business has probably been the downfall of
countless other small businesses that fell victim to your service. I hope
you can sleep at night knowing the damage you caused us all. Worst yet,
you were a trusted finance company that didn’t come with a fraud warning
label!!”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
cc.

Jamie Dean Jones

November 4, 2021

“I never received my funds either and I am now getting emails about
forgiveness on a loan I never received and I’m in Arizona what do I do?”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
dd.

Christine Allen

November 4, 2021

“i was approved also for PPP and Prestomos says they issued my check
recieved 6/1/2021 and i still havent gotten the money.Please add me to
list”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
ee.

David Raymond Butts

November 4, 2021

“I was also short changed out of my loan which was approved by the
SBA. Signed on May 27th and still no funds”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

ff.

Document 37

Teresa Fernandez

Filed 05/02/22

Page 58 of 175

December 12, 2021

“I never got my loan and it was approved and dispersed 6 months ago I
lost everything even hope I would ever see this money lets see what
happens”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
gg.

Terry

December 10, 2021

“I recieved my funds from my ppp loan then Prestamos removed it via ach
from my account. And when I called them they claim no record of
removing it. My bank gave me the ach tracking number showing it
returned and the sba sent me a letter saying my forgiveness was approved
and I never applied for forgiveness”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
hh.

Dawn Fullerton

December 7, 2021

“They never sent my money but it was approved and also was forgiven by
SBA so they pocketed the whole 20K”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
ii.

Robert Ventullo

December 6, 2021

“I just realized thought I need help and if anyone handles this please
contact me”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
jj.

Curtis Samuel

December 6, 2021

“I need answer to why I can’t get my money blue acorn can not be
trusted”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
53

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

kk.

Document 37

Cory Patterson

Filed 05/02/22

Page 59 of 175

December 6, 2021

“They need to come off with my funds I was approved and the sba funded
but iced seen nothing”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
ll.

Frankie Johnson

December 5, 2021

“Applied for and was approved granted an SBA loan number but never
received anything.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
mm.

Erica Page

December 6, 2021

“Approved for the ppp on the loan list but never received”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
nn.

Shelby Edwards

December 2, 2021

“Applied for, was approved, but never received funds. Sba states funds
were disbursed. Received prepaid card with NO FUNDS TODAY AFTER
NEARLY 8 months.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
oo.

Eshontel Davis

December 4, 2021

“Me also is sickening and people should be held accountable. They just
keep saying wait its ridiculous. I’ve even begged to just cancel the loan.
I’ve asked for the legal department everything and I get nothing but rest
assure.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

pp.

Document 37

Amy Channel

Filed 05/02/22

Page 60 of 175

November 29, 2021

“My name is Amy channell I own a caregiving business, and I filled out
an application for the ppp loan through blue acorn in April and was
approved they sent my money to my bank my bank denied it and sent
them the money back they kept telling me they were going to send my
money to the right account and to be patient they said it would take 3 to 6
days. Then on August 11th I got this email ‘We are writing to let you
know that we have determined that based upon information you provided,
your application does not meet the requirements for the Paycheck
Protection Program.
Unfortunately, we will not be able to fund your PPP loan.’ I have been
waiting since April for these funds because they told me I was approved
and kept telling me to be patient my funds are set aside and will be funded
into my account no matter what but they have alot of applications there
taking care of so to bare with them. I would really like help with what to
do this has set me back alot now.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
qq.

Tyree Kelly

November 29, 2021

“I got approved for my PPP load with Blue Acorn in March. Did all the
paperwork and waited, but emailed them about once a week. After finding
out they ran out of money, I emailed them again to be told I need to Is
verify my identity, mind you this is months after me filing. Did they and
they ended up saying they can’t fund me but had me on the hook the
whole time.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
rr.

Thomas Carrick

November 28, 2021

“I was approved through Blue Accorn on 5-20-2021, SBA approved me I
should say almost 2 weeks went by and did not receive my funds, after
looking over my paperwork that I had signed, meaning the loan papers and
promisary note, I noticed that one number in the routing number was
wrong, it was a nightmare after that, then I got a message from them
saying that they can not find my loan because I’m not approved, what!?
LoL, I was already approved and waiting on funding, Prestamos is the
bank funding the loan, there’s some serious crooked crap going on with all
this shit!”
55

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 61 of 175

https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
ss.

Tiffany Abbe

November 24, 2021

“Blue Acorn- they approved loan I never received funds, SBA website
shows I was funded and received the money . After 6 months of not
getting any help or received my loan I turned them into the BBB and they
wouldn’t reply to them or me and then all of a sudden my loan was denied
but SBA says I have to pay that money back I can’t even apply for the
forgiveness part because blue Acorn can’t find me in the system anymore.
But I have to pay back the amount or I could face jail time ! Is what I was
told.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
tt.

Cody Brooks

November 23, 2021

“I got approve for my PPP loan in the amount $16,250 By The **
Prestamos CDFI is trying to steal my money. Prestamos CDFI, said my
funds will be sent back to ***, but the *** said no funds are return to them
at all. I need my funds for my business.” (Oct. 12, 2021 post)
Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile
(bbb.org)

vv.

“My small business was approved by the sba in may in their records my
loan status is disbursed yet I havent received a dime and the lender
prestamos refuses to address the issue only referring me back to blueacorn
whos lying telling me that after review I wasnt approved by the sba so I
just want the money that i have been approved for.” (Sept. 23, 2021 post)
Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile
(bbb.org)

ww.

“Ive previously been approved for a ppp loan with Prestamos CDFI LLC
as my lender. This loan appears online on several sites as being disbursed
56

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 62 of 175

from Prestamos CDFI LLC to myself ********************* back in
May 2021 but the issue is that Ive never received these funds. When
reaching out to Prestamos CDFI LLC showing several documents and
screenshots as my valid proof the only response I received was the loan
through their technology partners organization Blueacorn I stated that
nothing on my loan documentation shows anything about a Blueacorn but
does show that Prestamos CDFI LLC is my lender. Ive recently taken out
a separate business loan in the amount of what my ppp loan was to cover
business things so I went ahead and applied for the Forgiveness and
Prestamos accepted it and sent it to the sba. Only way to apply for
forgiveness is by being approved and funds disbursed. I still havent
received any of those funds from Prestamos CDFI LLC and theyre lacking
important communication.” (Sept. 22, 2021 post)
Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile
(bbb.org)
xx.

“I applied for my second PPP loan with XXXX. XXXX farmed this loan
request along with about XXXX other loans to Prestamos XXXX, XXXX.
After hurdles, jumping through hoops, I received SBA approval and was
provided loan documents that were signed and supposedly legally binding.
Those documents were provided by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX by way of
Prestamos to sign. I was advised on XX/XX/XXXX by my bank XXXX,
that the funds in the amount of {$3200.00} were being returned to
Prestamos XXXX. I knew this was going to happen and attempted to
update my bank information prior to the money being returned but was
denied. Ultimately the money was returned. I immediately attempted to
reach out to both the lender and the third party XXXX. Prestamos
completely wiped their hands of the matter. Despite having contractually
entered into a loan with myself, and then, LYING TO THE
GOVERNMENT in having public record reflect the above, that I had the
loan funded and the funds were dispersed to me. The funds that were
supposed to be designated for me and reissued, as any lender would
clearly do, are MIA. I have documentation on top of documentation of this
whole ordeal to demonstrate that despite currently being legally bound to a
loan that has been accruing interest since XX/XX/XXXX, the lender has
not once reached out to myself or the SBA to correct the information.”
(July 30, 2021 consumer complaint excerpt).
Search the Consumer Complaint Database | Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov)

228.

Further, although Prestamos states on its website that it maintains an office in

Santa Fe, New Mexico (see Prestamos CDFI, Prestamos Locations, available at

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 63 of 175

https://www.prestamosloans.org/locations/ (last visited May 1, 2022), Plaintiffs were advised
that office may not even exist.
229.

Plaintiffs are unaware whether Prestamos has retained or has spent or disbursed

any such funds for any other purpose. Plaintiffs have requested and anticipate obtaining further
information regarding the status of the SBA-approved but unfunded PPP loan proceeds in
discovery. Further and in any event, Plaintiffs are aware that Prestamos has belatedly sought to
fund certain class member borrowers following the filing of plaintiffs’ original complaint on
October 1, 2021, and these borrowers have still incurred lost opportunity and other damages to
their businesses due to Prestamos’s failure to timely fund their loans.
Class Action Allegations
230.

Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the following National

Class and Subclasses (collectively, the “Classes”):
a.

National Class: All persons and entities in the United States who, in
2021, applied for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for
whom the SBA provided an SBA loan number, who executed their Loan
Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds;

California Subclass: All persons and entities in California who, in 2021,
applied for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for whom
the SBA provided an SBA loan number, who executed their Loan
Documents but did not receive the PPP loan proceeds;

Illinois Subclass: All persons and entities in Illinois who, in 2021, applied
for PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for whom the SBA
provided an SBA loan number, who executed their Loan Documents but
did not receive the PPP loan proceeds; and

Ohio Subclass: All persons and entities in Ohio who, in 2021, applied for
PPP loans with defendant Prestamos as the lender for whom the SBA
provided an SBA loan number, who executed their Loan Documents but
did not receive the PPP loan proceeds.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

231.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 64 of 175

Excluded from the Classes are Prestamos, CPLC, any entities in which Prestamos

or CPLC has a controlling interest, Defendants’ agents and employees, any Judge to whom this
action is assigned, and any member of such Judge’s staff and immediate family.
232.

There is a well-defined community of interest among members of the Classes, and

the disposition of their claims in a single action will benefit the parties and the Court.
233.

The proposed Classes meet each applicable requirement of FED. R. CIV. P. 23.

234.

Numerosity: While the exact number of members of the Classes is unknown at

this time and can be determined by appropriate discovery, the Classes include hundreds or
thousands of members such that joinder of all members is impracticable.
235.

Ascertainability: Names and addresses of members of the Classes are available

from defendant Prestamos’s records and potentially other sources including publicly available
databases. Notice can be provided to the members of the Classes through direct mailing,
publication, or otherwise using techniques and a form of notice similar to those customarily used
in class action litigation.
236.

Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the same facts and legal theories as

those of the other members of the Classes which Plaintiffs respectively seek to represent.
Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes all similarly applied for PPP loans, had their loans
approved by the SBA, but did not receive their PPP loan proceeds from Prestamos.
237.

Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the

members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes as their interests
align with the interests of the members of the Classes, and Plaintiffs are represented by counsel
skilled and experienced in class actions, including financial consumer and other class action
litigation.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

238.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 65 of 175

Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted in this action because the expense and burden of
individual litigation makes it economically unfeasible for members of the Classes to seek to
redress their claims other than through a class action; if separate actions were brought by
individual members of the Classes, the resulting duplicity of lawsuits could lead to differing and
inconsistent adjudications; and, absent a class action, Prestamos is unlikely to be held
accountable for its failure to actually fund all applicable SBA-approved PPP loans.
239.

Predominance and Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist and

predominate over any questions which affect individual members of the Classes. Common
questions of fact and law include, but are not limited to:

240.

whether defendant Prestamos failed to fund SBA-approved PPP loans to
Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes in breach of its obligations to
actually fund such loans;

whether Prestamos obtained fees for PPP loans that it did not make;

whether Prestamos upstreamed to CPLC PPP loan processing fees on the
PPP loans of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated unfunded putative
members of the proposed class;

whether Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans violated the
Loan Documents it entered into with Plaintiffs and other members of the
Classes;

whether Prestamos’s failure to fund PPP loans constituted unlawful,
deceptive and/or unfair acts or practices as to the members of the
California, Illinois and Ohio Subclasses;

whether defendant Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans
damaged members of the Classes; and

whether defendant CPLC was unjustly enriched thereby.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definition of the Classes if discovery or

further investigation reveals that the definition of the Classes should be amended.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 66 of 175

COUNT ONE
Breach of Contract
(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and the National Class)
241.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
242.

This Count is brought against both Defendants.

243.

The standard form promissory Note and accompanying Loan Documents that

defendant Prestamos and the members of the Classes entered into are binding, enforceable
agreements.
244.

Among other provisions, the Note identifies the specific PPP loan, SBA loan

number and amount of the loan; specifies that the parties to the Note are, respectively, the Class
member borrower and the “Lender” Prestamos; provides that, “[i]n return for the Loan, Borrower
promises to pay to the order of the Lender” the principal amount of the PPP loan plus “interest
on the unpaid principle balance, and all other amounts required by this Note” if not forgiven;
contains other PPP loan repayment terms and events of default and the lender’s rights in the
event of the borrower’s default; contains other provisions, including that “[a]ll individuals and
entities signing this Note are jointly and severally liable”; and, as to each Plaintiff and member
of the Classes, states that, “[b]y signing below, each individual or entity becomes obligated
under this Note as Borrower.”
245.

In addition, the Additional Agreement that accompanies the promissory Note

between the Plaintiff Class member borrowers and defendant Prestamos provides additional
terms and states, at the outset, explicitly as follows:
“In consideration of Prestamos CDFI, LLC, located at 1024 E. Buckeye
RD, Suite 270, Phoenix, AZ 85034, (hereinafter called ‘Lender’) making

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 67 of 175

the above loan, each of the undersigned, jointly and severally, do hereby
agree as follows ….”
246.

The Loan Document contracts entered into by Prestamos and the members of the

Plaintiff borrower Classes also include a “Notice - No Oral Agreements” document. That
document governs the “Loan by Lender, Prestamos CDFI, LLC to Borrower”; identifies each
Class member borrower and the SBA-approved amount of the loan; states that “THE
WRITTEN LOAN AGREEMENT REPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF
PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE
PARTIES”; states that the “‘Loan Agreement’ means one or more promises, promissory notes,
agreements, undertakings, security agreements, deeds of trust or other documents or
commitments, or any combination of those actions or documents, pursuant to which a financial
institution loans or delays repayment of or agrees to loan or delay repayment of money, goods, or
another thing of value or to otherwise extend credit or make a financial accommodation”; and is
executed by both Prestamos via its President Martinez, and each Class member borrower.
247.

A complete copy of one such Loan Document is attached to this Amended

Complaint as Exhibit A (with only Plaintiff’s Social Security and bank account number
redacted).
248.

Through its agreement to make PPP loans via the Loan Documents, its acceptance

and approval of Plaintiffs’ PPP loan applications, and as the counterparty to the Loan
Documents, defendant Prestamos entered into a binding agreement with each of the Plaintiffs
and the members of the proposed National Class to fund their respective PPP loans.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

249.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 68 of 175

Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class gave consideration that was fair

and reasonable, and have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required to be
performed under their Loan Documents with defendant Prestamos.
250.

Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class kept their end of the bargain by

providing all documents and information requested by defendant Prestamos. Defendant
Prestamos failed to complete its end of the bargain by failing to make the PPP loans to Plaintiffs
and the members of the National Class.
251.

Further, defendant Prestamos had an implied duty to act in good faith and in

accordance with fair dealing to take all steps necessary to fund the Plaintiffs’ and the other
National Class members’ PPP loans pursuant to the Loan Documents.
252.

Defendant Prestamos breached its obligations to fund Plaintiffs’ and other

National Class members’ PPP loans under the Loan Documents by failing to fund the loans
within 10 days of the SBA’s approval of the loans and assignment of loan numbers, or at any
time thereafter.
253.

Defendant Prestamos’s failure to properly fund the loans of Plaintiffs and the

other members of the National Class also breached its obligations under the Additional
Agreement that, “[i]n consideration of Prestamos … making the above loan, each of the
undersigned, jointly and severally, do hereby agree as follows: …”; the term in the Notice - No
Oral Agreements that the “Loan by Lender, Prestamos CDFI, LLC to Borrower … in the amount
of $ … REPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND
MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS,
OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES”; and the term in the Notice
- No Oral Agreements that the “‘Loan Agreement’ means one or more promises, promissory

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 69 of 175

notes, agreements, undertakings, security agreements, deeds of trust or other documents or
commitments, or any combination of those actions or documents, pursuant to which a financial
institution loans or delays repayment of or agrees to loan or delay repayment of money, goods, or
another thing of value or to otherwise extend credit or make a financial accommodation.”
254.

By failing to fund the SBA-approved loans of Plaintiffs and the members of the

National Class, defendant Prestamos not only breached the terms of the Loan Documents as
alleged, but also failed to perform the central purpose of the parties’ agreement which was to
timely and properly fund these SBA-approved loans.
255.

Moreover, all PPP loan applications require applicants to certify that they have

not, and will not, receive other PPP loans as alleged more fully above.
256.

As a result, once Plaintiffs and the other members of the National Class applied

for PPP loans and their loan applications were approved by the SBA and assigned PPP loan
numbers pursuant to the Loan Documents, Plaintiffs and the National Class members were no
longer able to apply for PPP loans with other PPP lenders as they would not be able to certify
that they would not receive another PPP loan, also as alleged more fully above.
257.

Plaintiffs and the National Class members were therefore effectively “stuck” with,

and had to rely exclusively on, defendant Prestamos to actually provide them with the PPP loan
funds that they needed and that the SBA had already approved.
258.

For its part, defendant CPLC controlled and directed Prestamos’s PPP lending

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 70 of 175

obligated to fund but failed to fund; and served as Prestamos’s alter ego in failing to fund the
SBA-approved loans of Plaintiffs and the putative members of the National Class all as alleged
more fully above, and is therefore also liable for breach of contract.
259.

As a result, Defendants harmed Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class

in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than the amount of the wrongfully withheld
PPP loan proceeds plus all other applicable damages to the full extent permissible by law.
COUNT TWO
Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the California Subclass)
260.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
261.

This Count is brought against both Defendants.

262.

The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) defines unfair business

competition to include any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” act or practice. CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE § 17200.
263.

A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other law

or regulation.
264.

Plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend have standing to bring this claim because these

Plaintiffs are residents of California and are subject to the protection of the UCL.
265.

Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans breached the Loan

Documents and accompanying legal duties it owed plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the
other members of the California Subclass.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

266.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 71 of 175

As a result of its failure to fund the SBA-approved PPP loans, Prestamos obtained

fees and other compensation to which it was not entitled, including fees on loans it never funded
and loan proceeds rightfully belonging to plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the California
Subclass, and wrongfully deprived plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the members of the
California Subclass of PPP loan proceeds.
267.

For its part, defendant CPLC controlled and directed Prestamos’s PPP lending

activities and failure to fund the SBA-approved loans of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and
the other members of the California subclass and caused Prestamos to upstream to CPLC PPP
loan processing fees including on PPP loans Prestamos was obligated to fund but failed to fund,
all as alleged more fully above.
268.

When the PPP loans of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the California

Subclass were approved by the SBA, these SBA-approved borrowers had a vested interest in the
PPP loan proceeds which Prestamos wrongfully withheld.
269.

Prestamos’s failures to fund these PPP loans thereby constitute a violation under

the “unlawful” prong of the UCL.
270.

Similarly, Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved loans also constitutes

“unfair” acts and practices under the UCL because Prestamos’s acts and practices as alleged
offend public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially
injurious to plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the members of the California Subclass.
271.

Defendant CPLC’s role in directing Prestamos’s PPP lending also constitutes

“unfair” acts and practices under the UCL because CPLC controlled and directed Prestamos’s
acts and practices as alleged which also offends public policy and is and was immoral, unethical,

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 72 of 175

oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the
members of the California Subclass.
272.

Prestamos’s breaches of contract -- including not disbursing SBA-approved loan

funds and “locking” these borrowers into Prestamos -- constitute an unfair practice because those
breaches are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious.
273.

Once the loan applications of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and other

similarly situated members of the California Subclass were approved by the SBA, these Subclass
member borrowers had to rely exclusively on Prestamos to actually fund their PPP loans and
were thereby precluded from seeking PPP loans from other lenders, also as alleged above.
274.

Prestamos’s failure to fund PPP loans of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and

the other members of the California Subclass constitute unlawful and unfair business acts or
practices within the meaning of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200.
275.

CPLC’s control and direction of Prestamos in failing PPP loans of plaintiffs

Marshall and Townsend and the other members of the California Subclass also constitutes
unlawful and unfair business acts or practices within the meaning of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE
§ 17200.
276.

As a result of Defendants’ violations of the UCL, plaintiffs Marshall and

Townsend and the members of the California Subclass are, in the alternative and to the extent
that their breach of contract claim against defendant Prestamos fails to adequately award their
damages, entitled to equitable relief, including specifically injunctive relief directing Prestamos
to fund their SBA-approved loans in full with applicable interest from the date the loans should
have been funded, or restitution for the amount of the wrongfully withheld PPP loan proceeds
plus interest.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 73 of 175

COUNT THREE
Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Ahmadou and the Illinois Subclass)
277.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
278.

This Count is brought against defendant Prestamos.

279.

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the “ICFA”)

prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or
employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the
concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the
concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact … in the conduct of any trade or
commerce … whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 815
ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/2.
280.

In the course of its business, Prestamos concealed and suppressed material facts

concerning funding the SBA-approved PPP loans of plaintiff Ahmadou and the members of the
Illinois Subclass. Among other things, Prestamos falsely communicated its promises to: (1) act
as a “Lender”; (2) hold Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass members to obligations “[i]n
consideration of Prestamos … making the … loan[s]” to which these SBA-approved borrowers
were entitled; (3) otherwise fulfill the terms of its written agreements with plaintiff Ahmadou
and the members of the Illinois Subclass.
281.

The ICFA also provides: “In construing this section consideration shall be given

to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to Section
5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/2.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

282.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 74 of 175

Prestamos is a “person” as that term is defined for the purposes of 815 ILL. COMP.

STAT. § 505/1(c).
283.

Plaintiff Ahmadou has standing to bring this claim because he is a resident of

Illinois and subject to the protections of the ICFA.
284.

Plaintiff Ahmadou and members of the Illinois Subclass are “consumers” as that

term is defined for the purposes 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/1(e).
285.

Prestamos’s conduct, as described in this amended complaint, constitutes

“deceptive acts” in violation of the ICFA.
286.

Prestamos’s conduct, as described in this amended complaint, also constitutes

“unfair” acts in violation of the ICFA.
287.

Prestamos’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact

deceive plaintiff Ahmadou and members of the Illinois Subclass with respect to its intention to
fund their SBA-approved loans.
288.

The ICFA allows “[a]ny person who suffers actual damage as a result of a

violation of this Act committed by any other person [to] bring an action against such person. The
court, in its discretion may award actual economic damages or any other relief which the court
deems proper .…” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/10a.
289.

Plaintiff and the members of the Illinois Subclass suffered ascertainable loss and

actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Prestamos’s concealment of and failure to
disclose material information about the funding of their PPP loans. Plaintiff and Illinois Subclass
members contracted with and thereby agreed to allow Prestamos to process and fund their SBA
loans and would not have done so if the true nature of those services had been disclosed.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

290.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 75 of 175

Plaintiff Ahmadou and the Illinois Subclass seek monetary relief against

Prestamos in the amount of actual damages, as well as punitive damages to the extent Prestamos
acted with malice and/or was grossly negligent to the maximum extent permissible by law under
the ICFA.
291.

Prestamos’s unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public

interest.
292.

Plaintiff Ahmadou and the Illinois Subclass also seek an order enjoining each

Prestamos’s unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and
proper relief available under 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/1, et seq.
COUNT FOUR
Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
Ohio Rev. Code §1345.01, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Stalnaker and the Ohio Subclass)
293.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
294.

This Count is brought against defendant Prestamos.

295.

At all relevant times, plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass

were “persons” within the meaning of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4165.01(D).
296.

Plaintiff Stalnaker has standing to bring this claim because she is a resident of

Ohio and subject to the protections of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the “ODTPA”).
297.

At all relevant and material times as described herein, Prestamos was engaged in

“the course of [its] business” within the meaning of OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4165.02(A) with
respect to the acts alleged herein.
298.

OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4165.02(A) provides that a “person engages in a

deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the
70

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 76 of 175

person does any of the following: ... (7) Represents that goods or services have sponsorship,
approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have …
(13) Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public
demand.”
299.

Plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass have suffered losses

because of Prestamos’s employment of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the course of its
business to the detriment of plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass and their
respective businesses. Prestamos promised to, among other things: (1) act as a “Lender”;
(2) perform its obligations to plaintiff Stalnaker and Ohio Subclass members including but not
limited to “[i]n consideration of Prestamos … making the … loan[s]” to which plaintiff Stalnaker
and the members of the Ohio Subclass were entitled; and (3) otherwise fulfill the terms of its
written agreements with plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass.
300.

Prestamos knew or should have known that those practices were deceptive in

violation of ODTPA, OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4165.02(A).
301.

The facts that Prestamos concealed were material to the decisions of plaintiff

Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass as to whether to select Prestamos to fund their
SBA-approved loans, in that they would not have proceeded with Prestamos but for Prestamos’s
misconduct.
302.

As a direct and proximate result of Prestamos’s misconduct alleged herein,

plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass were deceived into contracting with
Prestamos to process their SBA-approved loans and have been damaged thereby.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

303.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 77 of 175

Prestamos is therefore liable to plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio

Subclass for the damages they sustained, plus statutory damages, penalties, injunctive relief,
costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the maximum extent provided by the ODTPA.
COUNT FIVE
Unjust Enrichment
(Against Defendant CPLC)
304.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
305.

This Count is brought against defendant CPLC. Plaintiffs allege this Count only

in the alternative, to the extent Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and California state law claims fail
to adequately compensate Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class and California
Subclass for the violations as alleged herein.
306.

Plaintiffs and Class members conferred a monetary benefit on defendant CPLC.

Specifically, they chose CPLC’s wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary, defendant Prestamos,
to process and fund their PPP loans. In exchange, Plaintiffs and Class members should have
received the funds to which they were entitled.
307.

Defendant Prestamos received PPPLF advances and PPP loan processing fees

based, at least in part, on the unfunded loans of the Plaintiffs and Class members, all of which
was controlled and directed by CPLC as alleged more fully above.
308.

Defendant CPLC appreciated or had knowledge of the benefits it received as a

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 78 of 175

members’ PPP loan transactions and used the funds resulting therefrom for business purposes
and for the personal gain of CPLC and CPLC’s insiders and potentially others, as alleged more
fully above.
309.

CPLC controlled and directed the activities of Prestamos for purposes of the PPP

also as alleged more fully above, and CPLC should have caused Prestamos to timely and
properly fund Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ PPP loans.
310.

Under the principles of equity and good conscience, defendant CPLC should not

be permitted to retain the funds it obtained and received as a result of Plaintiffs’ and Class
members’ unfunded loans, without Prestamos having disbursed those or other funds to fund the
PPP loans to which Plaintiffs and Class members were entitled.
311.

CPLC did not require Prestamos to fund those loans and Prestamos did not, in

fact, fund those loans, and therefore did not provide full compensation for the benefit Plaintiffs
and Class members provided.
312.

As a direct and proximate result of CPLC’s conduct as alleged, Plaintiffs and

Class members have suffered and will suffer injury.
313.

Defendant CPLC should not be permitted to unjustly enrich itself at the expense

of Plaintiffs and Class members, but in equity and good conscience should be required to make
restitution for all funds acquired as a result of its unlawful conduct. Defendant CPLC should be
compelled to disgorge into a common fund or constructive trust, for the benefit of Plaintiffs and
Class members, proceeds that it unjustly received as a result of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
unfunded PPP loans.
Prayer for Relief
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed Classes, respectfully request the
following relief:
73

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 79 of 175

an order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; naming plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed National Class; naming plaintiffs
Marshall and Townsend as representatives of the proposed California Subclass; naming plaintiff
Ahmadou as representative of the proposed Illinois Subclass; naming plaintiff Stalnaker as
representative of the proposed Ohio Subclass; and naming Plaintiffs’ attorneys as counsel for the
Classes and the Subclasses;
B.

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Classes on all applicable counts asserted

an award of compensatory, consequential and other damages to Plaintiffs and

herein;

members of the Classes in amounts to be determined at trial to the maximum extent permissible
by law, plus prejudgment interest;
D.

an order awarding all other forms of monetary relief to the maximum extent

permissible by law, including payment to the Classes of all PPP loan proceeds owed and due to
Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes with interest, as well as disgorgement of all fees
Prestamos obtained in connection therewith to the maximum extent permissible by law;
E.

an order of equitable relief, in the alternative and to the extent that the breach of

contract claim of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the members of the California Subclass
fails to adequately award their damages for Defendants’ violations, including injunctive relief
directing Defendants to fund their SBA-approved loans in full with interest, or restitution in the
amount of the wrongfully withheld PPP loan proceeds plus interest under CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE § 17200;

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 80 of 175

an award of punitive damages based on Prestamos’ intentional, wanton and

malicious conduct, or its reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ and the National Class members’ rights,
in amounts to be determined at trial to the maximum extent permissible by law;
G.

an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’ fees and

expenses and costs of this lawsuit, including but not limited to expert fees and costs, to the
maximum extent permissible by law;
H.

an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’ fees and

expenses and costs of this lawsuit in connection with any applicable PPP loans Prestamos funded
after the October 1, 2021 date that this litigation was filed that are fairly and reasonably
attributable to Plaintiffs filing and maintaining this litigation to the maximum extent permissible
by law; and
I.

such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any
and all issues in this action so triable as of right.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Dated: May 2, 2022

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 81 of 175

Respectfully submitted,
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
By: /s/ Lawrence J. Lederer
Lawrence J. Lederer (Pa. ID 50445)
Michael L. Murphy (admitted pro hac vice)
Patricia M. Kipnis (Pa. ID 91470)
Bart D. Cohen (Pa. ID 57606)
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
T.: 202.463-2101
F.: 202.463-2103
llederer@baileyglasser.com
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com
pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
- and NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP
Justin A. Heller (admitted pro hac vice)
Matthew M. Zapala (admitted pro hac vice)
80 State Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
T.: 518.449.3300
F.: 518.432.3123
jheller@nhkllp.com
mzapala@nhkllp.com

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 82 of 175

EXHIBIT A:
PLAINTIFF MARSHALL’S
LOAN DOCUMENT CONTRACT

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 83 of 175

86 6PDOO %XVLQHVV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ

127(

6%$ /RDQ

6%$ /RDQ 1DPH

3D\FKHFN 3URWHFWLRQ 3URJUDP

'DWH

/RDQ $PRXQW

,QWHUHVW 5DWH

)L[HG DW

%RUURZHU

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

2SHUDWLQJ &RPSDQ\

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
/HQGHU

3UHVWDPRV &'), //&

3520,6( 72 3$<
,Q UHWXUQ IRU WKH /RDQ %RUURZHU SURPLVHV WR SD\ WR WKH RUGHU RI /HQGHU WKH DPRXQW RI

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
'ROODUV
LQWHUHVW RQ WKH XQSDLG SULQFLSDO EDODQFH DQG DOO RWKHU DPRXQWV UHTXLUHG E\ WKLV 1RWH

'(),1,7,216
³&ROODWHUDO´ PHDQV DQ\ SURSHUW\ WDNHQ DV VHFXULW\ IRU SD\PHQW RI WKLV 1RWH RU DQ\ JXDUDQWHH RI WKLV 1RWH
³ *XDUDQWRU´ PHDQV HDFK SHUVRQ RU HQWLW\ WKDW VLJQV D JXDUDQWHH RI SD\PHQW RI WKLV 1RWH
³/RDQ´ PHDQV WKH ORDQ HYLGHQFHG E\ WKLV 1RWH
³/RDQ 'RFXPHQWV´ PHDQV WKH GRFXPHQWV UHODWHG WR WKLV ORDQ VLJQHG E\ %RUURZHU DQ\ *XDUDQWRU RU DQ\RQH ZKR
SOHGJHV FROODWHUDO
³6%$´ PHDQV WKH 6PDOO %XVLQHVV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ DQ $JHQF\ RI WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV RI $PHULFD

6%$ )RUP 9HUVLRQ

3DJH

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 84 of 175

3$<0(17 7(506
%RUURZHU PXVW PDNH DOO SD\PHQWV DW WKH SODFH /HQGHU GHVLJQDWHV 7KH SD\PHQW WHUPV IRU WKLV 1RWH DUH
,QLWLDO 'HIHUPHQW 3HULRG 1R SD\PHQWV DUH GXH RQ WKLV ORDQ EHJLQQLQJ RQ WKH GDWH RI ILUVW GLVEXUVHPHQW RI WKLV ORDQ XQWLO
WKH ORDQ IRUJLYHQHVV SD\PHQW LV UHPLWWHG WR WKH /HQGHU E\ WKH 6%$ ,QWHUHVW ZLOO FRQWLQXH WR DFFUXH GXULQJ WKH GHIHUPHQW
SHULRG
/RDQ )RUJLYHQHVV
)LUVW 'UDZ 333 /RDQV PDGH WR HOLJLEOH ERUURZHUV TXDOLI\ IRU IXOO ORDQ IRUJLYHQHVV LI GXULQJ WKH WR ZHHN FRYHUHG
SHULRG IROORZLQJ ORDQ GLVEXUVHPHQW
R(PSOR\HH DQG FRPSHQVDWLRQ OHYHOV DUH PDLQWDLQHG
R7KH ORDQ SURFHHGV DUH VSHQW RQ SD\UROO FRVWV DQG RWKHU HOLJLEOH H[SHQVHV DQG
R$W OHDVW SHUFHQW RI WKH SURFHHGV DUH VSHQW RQ SD\UROO FRVWV
6HFRQG 'UDZ 333 /RDQV PDGH WR HOLJLEOH ERUURZHUV TXDOLI\ IRU IXOO ORDQ IRUJLYHQHVV LI GXULQJ WKH WR ZHHN FRYHUHG
SHULRG IROORZLQJ ORDQ GLVEXUVHPHQW
R(PSOR\HH DQG FRPSHQVDWLRQ OHYHOV DUH PDLQWDLQHG LQ WKH VDPH PDQQHU DV UHTXLUHG IRU WKH )LUVW 'UDZ 333 ORDQ
R7KH ORDQ SURFHHGV DUH VSHQW RQ SD\UROO FRVWV DQG RWKHU HOLJLEOH H[SHQVHV DQG
R$W OHDVW SHUFHQW RI WKH SURFHHGV DUH VSHQW RQ SD\UROO FRVWV
7KH DPRXQW RI ORDQ IRUJLYHQHVV VKDOO EH FDOFXODWHG DQG PD\ EH UHGXFHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI WKH
3D\FKHFN 3URWHFWLRQ 3URJUDP LQFOXGLQJ WKH SURYLVLRQV RI 6HFWLRQ RI WKH &RURQDYLUXV $LG 5HOLHI DQG (FRQRPLF
6HFXULW\ $FW &$5(6 $FW 1RW PRUH WKDQ RI WKH DPRXQW IRUJLYHQ FDQ EH DWWULEXWDEOH WR QRQSD\UROO FRVWV
0DWXULW\ 7KLV 1RWH ZLOO PDWXUH ILYH \HDUV IURP GDWH RI ILUVW GLVEXUVHPHQW RI WKLV ORDQ
5HSD\PHQW 7HUPV 7KH LQWHUHVW UDWH RQ WKLV 1RWH LV RQH SHUFHQW SHU \HDU 7KH LQWHUHVW UDWH LV IL[HG DQG ZLOO QRW EH
FKDQJHG GXULQJ WKH OLIH RI WKH ORDQ
)RU DQ\ DPRXQWV WKDW UHPDLQ RZLQJ RQ WKLV 1RWH DIWHU WKH 6%$ UHPLWV WKH IRUJLYHQHVV SD\PHQW %RUURZHU PXVW SD\
SULQFLSDO DQG LQWHUHVW SD\PHQWV LQ VXFK DPRXQW DV LV UHTXLUHG WR IXOO\ DPRUWL]H WKH XQSDLG EDODQFH RI WKLV 1RWH RYHU WKH
UHPDLQLQJ WHUP EHJLQQLQJ RQH PRQWK IROORZLQJ WKH 6%$ V IRUJLYHQHVV SD\PHQW ,I D IRUJLYHQHVV DSSOLFDWLRQ LV QRW
PDGH ZLWKLQ WHQ PRQWKV RI WKH ODVW GD\ RI WKH FRYHUHG SHULRG %RUURZHU PXVW SD\ SULQFLSDO DQG LQWHUHVW SD\PHQWV LQ
VXFK DPRXQW DV LV UHTXLUHG WR IXOO\ DPRUWL]H WKH XQSDLG EDODQFH RI WKLV 1RWH RYHU WKH UHPDLQLQJ WHUP 3D\PHQWV PXVW EH
PDGH RQ WKH VW FDOHQGDU GD\ LQ WKH PRQWKV WKH\ DUH GXH
/HQGHU ZLOO DSSO\ HDFK LQVWDOOPHQW SD\PHQW ILUVW WR SD\ LQWHUHVW DFFUXHG WR WKH GD\ /HQGHU UHFHLYHG WKH SD\PHQW WKHQ WR
EULQJ SULQFLSDO FXUUHQW DQG ZLOO DSSO\ DQ\ UHPDLQLQJ EDODQFH WR UHGXFH SULQFLSDO
/RDQ 3UHSD\PHQW 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ DQ\ SURYLVLRQ LQ WKLV 1RWH WR WKH FRQWUDU\
%RUURZHU PD\ SUHSD\ WKLV 1RWH DW DQ\ WLPH ZLWKRXW SHQDOW\ %RUURZHU PD\ SUHSD\ SHUFHQW RU OHVV RI WKH XQSDLG
SULQFLSDO EDODQFH DW DQ\ WLPH ZLWKRXW QRWLFH ,I %RUURZHU SUHSD\V PRUH WKDQ SHUFHQW DQG WKH /RDQ KDV EHHQ VROG RQ WKH
VHFRQGDU\ PDUNHW %RUURZHU PXVW D *LYH /HQGHU ZULWWHQ QRWLFH E 3D\ DOO DFFUXHG LQWHUHVW DQG F ,I WKH SUHSD\PHQW LV
UHFHLYHG OHVV WKDQ GD\V IURP WKH GDWH /HQGHU UHFHLYHG WKH QRWLFH SD\ DQ DPRXQW HTXDO WR GD\V LQWHUHVW IURP WKH GDWH
OHQGHU UHFHLYHG WKH QRWLFH OHVV DQ\ LQWHUHVW DFFUXHG GXULQJ WKH GD\V DQG SDLG XQGHU E RI WKLV SDUDJUDSK ,I %RUURZHU
GRHV QRW SUHSD\ ZLWKLQ GD\V IURP WKH GDWH /HQGHU UHFHLYHG WKH QRWLFH %RUURZHU PXVW JLYH /HQGHU D QHZ QRWLFH
1RQ5HFRXUVH /HQGHU DQG 6%$ VKDOO KDYH QR UHFRXUVH DJDLQVW DQ\ LQGLYLGXDO VKDUHKROGHU PHPEHU RU SDUWQHU RI
%RUURZHU IRU QRQSD\PHQW RI WKH ORDQ H[FHSW WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW VXFK VKDUHKROGHU PHPEHU RU SDUWQHU XVHV WKH ORDQ
SURFHHGV IRU DQ XQDXWKRUL]HG SXUSRVH

6%$ )RUP 9HUVLRQ

3DJH

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 85 of 175

'()$8/7
%RUURZHU LV LQ GHIDXOW XQGHU WKLV 1RWH LI %RUURZHU GRHV QRW PDNH D SD\PHQW ZKHQ GXH XQGHU WKLV 1RWH RU LI %RUURZHU
RU 2SHUDWLQJ &RPSDQ\

)DLOV WR GR DQ\WKLQJ UHTXLUHG E\ WKLV 1RWH DQG RWKHU /RDQ 'RFXPHQWV

'HIDXOWV RQ DQ\ RWKHU ORDQ ZLWK /HQGHU

'RHV QRW SUHVHUYH RU DFFRXQW WR /HQGHU¶V VDWLVIDFWLRQ IRU DQ\ RI WKH &ROODWHUDO RU LWV SURFHHGV

'RHV QRW GLVFORVH RU DQ\RQH DFWLQJ RQ WKHLU EHKDOI GRHV QRW GLVFORVH DQ\ PDWHULDO IDFW WR /HQGHU RU 6%$

(

0DNHV RU DQ\RQH DFWLQJ RQ WKHLU EHKDOI PDNHV D PDWHULDOO\ IDOVH RU PLVOHDGLQJ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ WR /HQGHU RU 6%$

)

'HIDXOWV RQ DQ\ ORDQ RU DJUHHPHQW ZLWK DQRWKHU FUHGLWRU LI /HQGHU EHOLHYHV WKH GHIDXOW PD\ PDWHULDOO\ DIIHFW
%RUURZHU¶V DELOLW\ WR SD\ WKLV 1RWH

)DLOV WR SD\ DQ\ WD[HV ZKHQ GXH

%HFRPHV WKH VXEMHFW RI D SURFHHGLQJ XQGHU DQ\ EDQNUXSWF\ RU LQVROYHQF\ ODZ

+DV D UHFHLYHU RU OLTXLGDWRU DSSRLQWHG IRU DQ\ SDUW RI WKHLU EXVLQHVV RU SURSHUW\

0DNHV DQ DVVLJQPHQW IRU WKH EHQHILW RI FUHGLWRUV

+DV DQ\ DGYHUVH FKDQJH LQ ILQDQFLDO FRQGLWLRQ RU EXVLQHVV RSHUDWLRQ WKDW /HQGHU EHOLHYHV PD\ PDWHULDOO\ DIIHFW
%RUURZHU¶V DELOLW\ WR SD\ WKLV 1RWH

5HRUJDQL]HV PHUJHV FRQVROLGDWHV RU RWKHUZLVH FKDQJHV RZQHUVKLS RU EXVLQHVV VWUXFWXUH ZLWKRXW /HQGHU¶V SULRU
ZULWWHQ FRQVHQW RU

%HFRPHV WKH VXEMHFW RI D FLYLO RU FULPLQDO DFWLRQ WKDW /HQGHU EHOLHYHV PD\ PDWHULDOO\ DIIHFW %RUURZHU¶V DELOLW\ WR
SD\ WKLV 1RWH

/(1'(5¶6 5,*+76 ,) 7+(5( ,6 $ '()$8/7
:LWKRXW QRWLFH RU GHPDQG DQG ZLWKRXW JLYLQJ XS DQ\ RI LWV ULJKWV /HQGHU PD\

5HTXLUH LPPHGLDWH SD\PHQW RI DOO DPRXQWV RZLQJ XQGHU WKLV 1RWH

&ROOHFW DOO DPRXQWV RZLQJ IURP DQ\ %RUURZHU RU *XDUDQWRU

)LOH VXLW DQG REWDLQ MXGJPHQW

7DNH SRVVHVVLRQ RI DQ\ &ROODWHUDO RU

(

6HOO OHDVH RU RWKHUZLVH GLVSRVH RI DQ\ &ROODWHUDO DW SXEOLF RU SULYDWH VDOH ZLWK RU ZLWKRXW DGYHUWLVHPHQW

/(1'(5¶6 *(1(5$/ 32:(56
:LWKRXW QRWLFH DQG ZLWKRXW %RUURZHU¶V FRQVHQW /HQGHU PD\
$

%LG RQ RU EX\ WKH &ROODWHUDO DW LWV VDOH RU WKH VDOH RI DQRWKHU OLHQKROGHU DW DQ\ SULFH LW FKRRVHV

,QFXU H[SHQVHV WR FROOHFW DPRXQWV GXH XQGHU WKLV 1RWH HQIRUFH WKH WHUPV RI WKLV 1RWH RU DQ\ RWKHU /RDQ
'RFXPHQW DQG SUHVHUYH RU GLVSRVH RI WKH &ROODWHUDO $PRQJ RWKHU WKLQJV WKH H[SHQVHV PD\ LQFOXGH SD\PHQWV
IRU SURSHUW\ WD[HV SULRU OLHQV LQVXUDQFH DSSUDLVDOV HQYLURQPHQWDO UHPHGLDWLRQ FRVWV DQG UHDVRQDEOH DWWRUQH\¶V
IHHV DQG FRVWV ,I /HQGHU LQFXUV VXFK H[SHQVHV LW PD\ GHPDQG LPPHGLDWH UHSD\PHQW IURP %RUURZHU RU DGG WKH
H[SHQVHV WR WKH SULQFLSDO EDODQFH

5HOHDVH DQ\RQH REOLJDWHG WR SD\ WKLV 1RWH

&RPSURPLVH UHOHDVH UHQHZ H[WHQG RU VXEVWLWXWH DQ\ RI WKH &ROODWHUDO DQG

(

7DNH DQ\ DFWLRQ QHFHVVDU\ WR SURWHFW WKH &ROODWHUDO RU FROOHFW DPRXQWV RZLQJ RQ WKLV 1RWH

6%$ )RUP 9HUVLRQ

3DJH

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 86 of 175

:+(1 )('(5$/ /$: $33/,(6
:KHQ 6%$ LV WKH KROGHU WKLV 1RWH ZLOO EH LQWHUSUHWHG DQG HQIRUFHG XQGHU IHGHUDO ODZ LQFOXGLQJ 6%$ UHJXODWLRQV
/HQGHU RU 6%$ PD\ XVH VWDWH RU ORFDO SURFHGXUHV IRU ILOLQJ SDSHUV UHFRUGLQJ GRFXPHQWV JLYLQJ QRWLFH IRUHFORVLQJ
OLHQV DQG RWKHU SXUSRVHV %\ XVLQJ VXFK SURFHGXUHV 6%$ GRHV QRW ZDLYH DQ\ IHGHUDO LPPXQLW\ IURP VWDWH RU ORFDO
FRQWURO SHQDOW\ WD[ RU OLDELOLW\ $V WR WKLV 1RWH %RUURZHU PD\ QRW FODLP RU DVVHUW DJDLQVW 6%$ DQ\ ORFDO RU VWDWH ODZ
WR GHQ\ DQ\ REOLJDWLRQ GHIHDW DQ\ FODLP RI 6%$ RU SUHHPSW IHGHUDO ODZ

68&&(66256 $1' $66,*16
8QGHU WKLV 1RWH %RUURZHU DQG 2SHUDWLQJ &RPSDQ\ LQFOXGH WKH VXFFHVVRUV RI HDFK DQG /HQGHU LQFOXGHV LWV VXFFHVVRUV
DQG DVVLJQV

*(1(5$/ 3529,6,216
$

$OO LQGLYLGXDOV DQG HQWLWLHV VLJQLQJ WKLV 1RWH DUH MRLQWO\ DQG VHYHUDOO\ OLDEOH

%RUURZHU ZDLYHV DOO VXUHW\VKLS GHIHQVHV

%RUURZHU PXVW VLJQ DOO GRFXPHQWV QHFHVVDU\ DW DQ\ WLPH WR FRPSO\ ZLWK WKH /RDQ 'RFXPHQWV DQG WR HQDEOH
/HQGHU WR DFTXLUH SHUIHFW RU PDLQWDLQ /HQGHU¶V OLHQV RQ &ROODWHUDO

/HQGHU PD\ H[HUFLVH DQ\ RI LWV ULJKWV VHSDUDWHO\ RU WRJHWKHU DV PDQ\ WLPHV DQG LQ DQ\ RUGHU LW FKRRVHV /HQGHU
PD\ GHOD\ RU IRUJR HQIRUFLQJ DQ\ RI LWV ULJKWV ZLWKRXW JLYLQJ XS DQ\ RI WKHP

(

%RUURZHU PD\ QRW XVH DQ RUDO VWDWHPHQW RI /HQGHU RU 6%$ WR FRQWUDGLFW RU DOWHU WKH ZULWWHQ WHUPV RI WKLV 1RWH

)

,I DQ\ SDUW RI WKLV 1RWH LV XQHQIRUFHDEOH DOO RWKHU SDUWV UHPDLQ LQ HIIHFW

7R WKH H[WHQW DOORZHG E\ ODZ %RUURZHU ZDLYHV DOO GHPDQGV DQG QRWLFHV LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKLV 1RWH LQFOXGLQJ
SUHVHQWPHQW GHPDQG SURWHVW DQG QRWLFH RI GLVKRQRU %RUURZHU DOVR ZDLYHV DQ\ GHIHQVHV EDVHG XSRQ DQ\ FODLP
WKDW /HQGHU GLG QRW REWDLQ DQ\ JXDUDQWHH GLG QRW REWDLQ SHUIHFW RU PDLQWDLQ D OLHQ XSRQ &ROODWHUDO LPSDLUHG
&ROODWHUDO RU GLG QRW REWDLQ WKH IDLU PDUNHW YDOXH RI &ROODWHUDO DW D VDOH

6%$ )RUP 9HUVLRQ

3DJH

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 87 of 175

67$7(63(&,),& 3529,6,216
1RQH

8QOHVV RWKHUZLVH SURKLELWHG E\ ODZ WKH IROORZLQJ DGGLWLRQDO SURYLVLRQV ZLOO DSSO\
5HOHDVH RI /HQGHU ,Q FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH DJUHHPHQW RI WKH /HQGHU WR SURYLGH WKLV 1RWH DQG RWKHU JRRG DQG
YDOXDEOH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ ZKLFK FRQVLGHUDWLRQ LV DJUHHG E\ %RUURZHU WR EH JRRG DQG VXIILFLHQW %RUURZHU 5(/($6(6
$&48,76 $1' )25(9(5 ',6&+$5*(6 WKH /HQGHU LWV GLUHFWRUV RIILFHUV VKDUHKROGHUV DJHQWV FRQWUDFWRUV
HPSOR\HHV DIILOLDWHV DWWRUQH\V VXFFHVVRUV DQG DVVLJQV IURP DQ\ DQG DOO FODLPV GHPDQGV OLHQV GDPDJHV DFWLRQV
RU VXLWV RI ZKDWVRHYHU QDWXUH RU FKDUDFWHU ZKHWKHU VWDWXWRU\ LQFOXGLQJ ZLWKRXW OLPLWDWLRQ XVXU\ DQG GHFHSWLYH WUDGH
SUDFWLFHV FODLPV LQ FRQWUDFW RU LQ WRUW NQRZQ RU XQNQRZQ ZKLFK KDYH DFFUXHG RU PD\ DFFUXH WR %RUURZHU RU DQ\
FUHGLWRU RU DIILOLDWH RI %RUURZHU RQ DFFRXQW RI DQ\ LQMXULHV GDPDJHV RU ORVVHV RU RWKHUZLVH DULVLQJ RXW RI RU LQ DQ\
ZD\ FRQQHFWHG WR L DQ\ H[WHQVLRQ RI FUHGLW E\ WKH /HQGHU WR %RUURZHU RQ RU SULRU WR WKH GDWH KHUHRI RU LL DQ\
PDWWHU RU WKLQJ GRQH RPLWWHG RU VXIIHUHG WR EH GRQH E\ WKH /HQGHU LWV GLUHFWRUV RIILFHUV VKDUHKROGHUV DJHQWV
HPSOR\HHV DIILOLDWHV DWWRUQH\V SUHGHFHVVRUV RU DVVLJQRUV RQ RU SULRU WR WKH GDWH KHUHRI
1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ DQ\WKLQJ HOVH FRQWDLQHG KHUHLQ WKLV 1RWH LV QRW VHFXUHG DQG WKHUH DUH QR JXDUDQWRUV

6%$ )RUP 9HUVLRQ

3DJH

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 88 of 175

%2552:(5¶6 1$0( 6 $1' 6,*1$785( 6
%\ VLJQLQJ EHORZ HDFK LQGLYLGXDO RU HQWLW\ EHFRPHV REOLJDWHG XQGHU WKLV 1RWH DV %RUURZHU

%2552:(5

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

%\ BBBBBBBBBB

6%$ )RUP 9HUVLRQ

BBBBBBBBBBBBBB

'DWH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

3DJH

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 89 of 175

$'',7,21$/ $1' &255(&7,21 '2&80(176 $*5((0(17
(55256 $1' 20,66,216 $*5((0(17
5(

/RDQ E\ /HQGHU 3UHVWDPRV &'), //& WR

6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

LQ WKH DPRXQW RI

,Q FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI 3UHVWDPRV &'), //& ORFDWHG DW ( %XFNH\H 5' 6XLWH 3KRHQL[ $= KHUHLQ
DIWHU FDOOHG ³/HQGHU´ PDNLQJ WKH DERYH ORDQ HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG MRLQWO\ DQG VHYHUDOO\ GR KHUHE\ DJUHH DV IROORZV

,Q WKH HYHQW WKH SURPLVVRU\ QRWH RU DQ\ RWKHU GRFXPHQW RU RWKHU ZULWLQJ HYLGHQFLQJ VHFXULQJ RU SHUWDLQLQJ
WR WKH DERYH ORDQ LV PLVSODFHG RU ORVW RU LQFRUUHFWO\ UHIOHFWV WKH WUXH DQG FRUUHFW WHUPV FRQGLWLRQV RU SURYLVLRQV RI WKH ORDQ
LQ WKH RSLQLRQ RI /HQGHU HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG VKDOO H[HFXWH DFNQRZOHGJH LQLWLDO DQG GHOLYHU WR /HQGHU DOO GRFXPHQWV
DQG RWKHU ZULWLQJV WKDW /HQGHU UHTXHVWV ZKLFK /HQGHU GHHPV QHFHVVDU\ WR UHSODFH RU FRUUHFW DQ\ PLVSODFHG ORVW RU LQFRUUHFW
GRFXPHQW RU RWKHU ZULWLQJ DQG

,Q WKH HYHQW /HQGHU GHHPV LW QHFHVVDU\ WKDW DQ\ DGGLWLRQDO GRFXPHQWV RU RWKHU ZULWLQJV EH H[HFXWHG E\ DQ\
RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK RU SHUWDLQLQJ WR WKH DERYH ORDQ ZKLFK KDYH QRW EHHQ UHTXHVWHG WR EH H[HFXWHG E\ WKH
XQGHUVLJQHG RQ RU EHIRUH WKH GDWH KHUHRI RU ZKLFK ZHUH UHTXHVWHG EXW QRW H[HFXWHG IRU DQ\ UHDVRQ ZKDWVRHYHU HDFK RI
WKH XQGHUVLJQHG VKDOO H[HFXWH DFNQRZOHGJH LQLWLDO DQG GHOLYHU WR /HQGHU DOO VXFK DGGLWLRQDO GRFXPHQWV RU RWKHU ZULWLQJV
WKDW /HQGHU PD\ UHDVRQDEO\ UHTXHVW LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK VXFK ORDQ DQG

(DFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG IXUWKHU DJUHHV WR H[HFXWH DFNQRZOHGJH LQLWLDO DQG GHOLYHU WR /HQGHU DOO VXFK
GRFXPHQWV DQG ZULWLQJV DQG SD\ VXFK DGGLWLRQDO VXPV UHTXHVWHG E\ /HQGHU ZLWKLQ WHQ GD\V DIWHU /HQGHU UHTXHVWV
VDPH $Q\ UHTXHVW E\ /HQGHU VKDOO EH GHHPHG JLYHQ DQG UHFHLYHG RQ WKH HDUOLHU RI L WKH GDWH VXFK UHTXHVW LV DFWXDOO\
UHFHLYHG E\ RQH RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG RU LL WKUHH GD\V DIWHU VXFK UHTXHVW LV PDLOHG SRVWDJH SUHSDLG DQG DGGUHVVHG WR
DQ\ RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG DW WKH ODVW NQRZQ DGGUHVV RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH UHFRUGV RI /HQGHU ZKLFKHYHU
GDWH RFFXUV ILUVW DQG

,I DQ\ RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG UHIXVHV RU IDLOV ZLWKLQ VXFK WHQ GD\ SHULRG WR L H[HFXWH DFNQRZOHGJH LQLWLDO
DQG GHOLYHU DQ\ VXFK GRFXPHQW RU RWKHU ZULWLQJ UHTXHVWHG E\ /HQGHU RU LL SD\ DQ\ VXFK IHHV H[SHQVHV FRVWV RU LQWHUHVW
HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG MRLQWO\ DQG VHYHUDOO\ DJUHH WR SD\ WR /HQGHU DOO ORVVHV GDPDJHV DQG H[SHQVHV SDLG RU LQFXUUHG
E\ /HQGHU LQ DQ\ PDQQHU HPDQDWLQJ WKHUHIURP RU FRQQHFWHG WKHUHZLWK LQFOXGLQJ EXW QRW OLPLWHG WR UHDVRQDEOH DWWRUQH\¶V
IHHV DQG HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG IXUWKHU DJUHH WKDW DQ\ VXFK IDLOXUH RU UHIXVDO VKDOO FRQVWLWXWH D GHIDXOW DQG DQ (YHQW RI
'HIDXOW XQGHU WKH QRWH DQG DOO RWKHU ZULWLQJV HYLGHQFLQJ VHFXULQJ RU SHUWDLQLQJ WR VDLG ORDQ DQG

(DFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG KHUHE\ DFNQRZOHGJHV WKDW /HQGHU LV UHO\LQJ XSRQ WKLV DJUHHPHQW LQ PDNLQJ WKH
DERYH ORDQ DQG WKDW /HQGHU ZRXOG QRW PDNH VXFK ORDQ XQOHVV HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG H[HFXWH DQG GHOLYHU WKLV DJUHHPHQW
DQG HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG IXUWKHU DJUHH WKDW WKLV DJUHHPHQW L VKDOO LQXUH WR WKH EHQHILW RI /HQGHU DQG HDFK VXEVHTXHQW
KROGHU RI WKH QRWH HYLGHQFLQJ VXFK ORDQ DQG LL VKDOO EH ELQGLQJ XSRQ HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG DQG XSRQ HDFK RI WKH KHLUV
SHUVRQDO UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV VXFFHVVRUV DQG DVVLJQV RI HDFK RI WKH XQGHUVLJQHG
(;(&87('

%2552:(5

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
$Q

6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG

%\
1DPH $OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
7LWOH 2ZQHU

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 90 of 175

%86,1(66 385326( 67$7(0(17
6%$ 3D\FKHFN 3URWHFWLRQ 3URJUDP

, $OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

2ZQHU

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG VWDWH DV IROORZV

7R LQGXFH 3UHVWDPRV &'), //& ( %XFNH\H 5G 6XLWH 3KRHQL[ $= WR

H[WHQG FUHGLW WR $OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

, UHSUHVHQW WKDW WKH SURFHHGV RI WKH ORDQ LQ WKH DPRXQW RI

6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG

ZLOO

XVHG

RQO\ IRU WKH IROORZLQJ SXUSRVH V
%XVLQHVV UHODWHG SXUSRVHV DV DXWKRUL]HG E\ WKH 86 6PDOO %XVLQHVV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 3D\FKHFN
3URWHFWLRQ 3URJUDP DQG DV VSHFLILHG LQ WKH ORDQ DSSOLFDWLRQ

, XQGHUVWDQG WKDW WKH DERYHVWDWHG SXUSRVH LV IRU EXVLQHVV RU FRPPHUFLDO SXUSRVHV RQO\

DQG WKDW \RX DUH UHO\LQJ XSRQ WKHVH UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV LQ QRW PDNLQJ 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ GLVFORVXUHV SXUVXDQW
WR 86& 6HFWLRQ LQ FRQQHFWLRQ ZLWK WKLV ORDQ

(;(&87('

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 91 of 175

127,&( 12 25$/ $*5((0(176
5(

/RDQ E\ /HQGHU 3UHVWDPRV &'), //& WR %RUURZHU $OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
DQ

LQ WKH DPRXQW RI
6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG

7+( :5,77(1 /2$1 $*5((0(17 5(35(6(176 7+( ),1$/ $*5((0(17 %(7:((1 7+(
3$57,(6 $1' 0$< 127 %( &2175$',&7(' %< (9,'(1&( 2) 35,25 &217(0325$1(286 25
68%6(48(17 25$/ $*5((0(176 2) 7+( 3$57,(6
7+(5( $5( 12 81:5,77(1 25$/ $*5((0(176 %(7:((1 7+( 3$57,(6
³/RDQ $JUHHPHQW´ PHDQV RQH RU PRUH SURPLVHV SURPLVVRU\ QRWHV DJUHHPHQWV XQGHUWDNLQJV
VHFXULW\ DJUHHPHQWV GHHGV RI WUXVW RU RWKHU GRFXPHQWV RU FRPPLWPHQWV RU DQ\ FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKRVH
DFWLRQV RU GRFXPHQWV SXUVXDQW WR ZKLFK D ILQDQFLDO LQVWLWXWLRQ ORDQV RU GHOD\V UHSD\PHQW RI RU DJUHHV WR
ORDQ RU GHOD\ UHSD\PHQW RI PRQH\ JRRGV RU DQRWKHU WKLQJ RI YDOXH RU WR RWKHUZLVH H[WHQG FUHGLW RU PDNH
D ILQDQFLDO DFFRPPRGDWLRQ
(;(&87('
/(1'(5
35(67$026 &'), //&

%\
1DPH

-RVH 0DUWLQH]

7LWOH

3UHVLGHQW

%2552:(5

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG

$Q
%\
1DPH

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

7LWOH

2ZQHU

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

!# "

Page 92 of 175

0-.0)/ /* ++'%'! '2 /$! 0) !-.%#)! !%)# /$! ++-*+-%/! #*1!-)%)# * 4 +0-.0)/ /* /$!
#*1!-)%)# *0(!)/. "*- /$! *--*2%)# !)/%/4 !.%#)/! *) /$! .%#)/0-! +#! $!-!*" 6*(+)47
$!-!4 *).!)/ /* /$! *+/%*) *" ) * $!-!4 *+/ /$! "*''*2%)# -!.*'0/%*). ) &)*2'! #! /$/
-!./(*. 6!) !-7 %. -!'4%)# *) /$! !""!/%1!)!.. $!-!*" %) (&%)# '*) /* *(+)4 0) !/$! 4$!& -*/!/%*) -*#-( !*) -2 *). *" /$! ('' 0.%)!..
(%)%./-/%*) 6 7 .
0/$*-%5! 0) !- !/%*)
*" /$! *)*(% % /* - %/ ('' 0.%)!..!. *)+-*"%/. ) !)0!.
/ *)*(% % /
/$/ /$! 0) !-.%#)! $!-!4 0/$*-%5!. /$! 0/$*-%5! !-.*) )(! !'*2 . /$!
++-*+-%/! +!-.*) +0-.0)/ /* /$! #*1!-)%)# *0(!)/. *" /$! *(+)4 6 0/$*-%5! !-.*)7
"*- ) *) !$'" ) %) /$! )(! *" /$! *(+)4 /* /&! .0$ /%*) )!!..-4 "*- /$! *(+)4
/* *--*2 (*)!4 ) /* */%) -! %/ "-*( /$! !) !- 2%/$ %/. +-%)%+' *""%! '*/! %) $*!)%3
-%5*) %) /$! (*0)/ .//! %) /$! +-*(%..*-4 )*/! !3!0/! 4 *(+)4 ) +4'! /* !) !/$! 6*)7 ) /! *) *- *0/ /$! /! $!-!*" $!-!%)"/!- ''! /$! 6*)7 %)'0 %)# )4
-!)!2'. !3/!).%*). *).*'% /%*). *- -!--)#!(!)/. *" .0$ %) !/! )!.. 0+*) .0$ /!-(.
) / .0$ -/!. . $! *- .$! !!(. -!.*)'!
/$/ /$! 0) !-.%#)! $!-!4 0/$*-%5!. /$! 0/$*-%5! !-.*) "*) *) !$'" ) %) /$! )(! *" /$! *(+)4 /* +-!+-! !3!0/! )
!'%1!- )4 ) ''
++'%/%*). !-/%"%/%*). +-*(%..*-4 )*/!. '*) #-!!(!)/. ) )4 ) '' */$!- *0(!)/.
) /* +!-"*-( )4 ) '' /. 2$%$ (4 ! )!!..-4 *- +-*+!- /* !""!/ /$! *--*2%)# ) /*
!3!0/! ) !'%1!- )4 ) '' %)./-0(!)/. ) +!-"*-( )4 ) '' /. -!,0%-! 4 /$! !) !) *- /$! %) *))!/%*) 2%/$ )4 (//!-. $!-!%) *)/%)! %)'0 %)# )4 -!)!2'.
!3/!).%*). *).*'% /%*). *- -!--)#!(!)/. *" .0$ %) !/! )!.. 0+*) .0$ /!-(. ) / .0$
-/!. . /$! 0/$*-%5! !-.*) %) $%. *- $!- .*'! %.-!/%*) !!(. -!.*)'!
/$/ '' /$! /. ) !! . *)! *- /* ! *)! 4 /$! 0/$*-%5!
!-.*) %) *))!/%*) 2%/$ /$! !3!0/%*) ) !'%1!-4 *" )4 +-*(%..*-4 )*/!. '*) #-!!(!)/.
) )4 ) '' */$!- *0(!)/. ) )4 ) '' /. 2$%$ (4 ! )!!..-4 *- +-*+!- /* !""!/
/$! *--*2%)# -! $!-!4 0/$*-%5! *+/! -/%"%! *)"%-(! ) ++-*1! . /$! /. )
!! . *" *(+)4
/$/ /$! 0/$*-%5! !-.*) ! ) %. $!-!4 0/$*-%5! )
%-!/! /* /&! .0$ */$!- /%*) ) !'%1!- .0$ %/%*)' %)./-0(!)/. %) /$! )(! *" ) *)
!$'" *" *(+)4 *- */$!-2%.! /* * '' .0$ "0-/$!- /. ) /$%)#. /$/ /$! 0/$*-%5! !-.*)
.$'' !!( )!!..-4 *- +-*+!- %) *- !- /* !""!/%1!'4 +!-"*-( '' *" /$! *'%#/%*). ) #-!!(!)/.
!3+-!..! /* ! &!+/ ) +!-"*-(! 4 *(+)4 +0-.0)/ /* /$! +-*1%.%*). *" )4 +-*(%..*-4
)*/!. '*) #-!!(!)/. ) )4 ) '' */$!- *0(!)/. ) /* +!-"*-( )4 ) '' /. 2$%$
(4 ! )!!..-4 *- +-*+!- /* !""!/ /$! *--*2%)# !.-%! *1!
/$/ )4 #*1!-)(!)/ #!)4 %)'0 %)# 0/ )*/ '%(%/! /* /$!
(4 '.* -!'4 *) /$%. -%//!) *).!)/ 2$!) % !)/%"4%)# )4 0/$*-%5! !-.*) "*- +0-+*.!. *" )4
'*) #0-)/4 '*) "*-#%1!)!.. *- */$!- #*1!-)(!)/ +-*#-( -!'/! /* /$! *) )
/$/ )4 ) '' /. 0/$*-%5! +0-.0)/ /* /$%. -%//!) *).!)/
) +!-"*-(! +-%*- /* /$! !3!0/%*) *" /$%. -%//!) *).!)/ -! $!-!4 -/%"%! ) ++-*1!
$%. -%//!) *).!)/ .$'' ! *)/%)0%)# ) .$'' -!(%) %) "0'' "*-! ) !""!/ 0)/%' 2-%//!) )*/%!
*" %/. -!1*/%*) .$'' $1! !!) !'%1!-! /* /$! !) !- ) -!!%+/ &)*2'! #! 4 /$! !) !%) 2-%/%)#

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 93 of 175

/$! 0) !-.%#)! $1! !3!0/! /$%. *).!)/ !""!/%1! . *"

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
)
4

6ROH 3URSULHWRUVKLS 8QUHJLVWHUHG

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
(!

%/'!

2ZQHU

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 94 of 175

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 95 of 175

% "" " ! " "! !" "& " % ! "$ !""#! " !" &
#" " " !""#" !" ! # " #"! !#"" " "

$ # !" % "" " "!( " ! ! &
" "" $ $ %" %" " ! #" ' !""$! # #" '
!""$! " !" & "! "! " ! " # !
# & $ " !" " & %" # "!
& $%!
$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO
"& " " " % " " " "#
" % " #" !! " # & " $ % #" '
" "! "! " ! " !" " ! " &(! # " "&
"" " #" " $ % ! " # # " " !"!

(YROYH %DQN

7UXVW

$OLFLD 0DUVKDOO

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 96 of 175

EXHIBIT 2:
REDLINE COMPARISON

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 97 of 175

Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG
[PROPOSED] SECOND AMENDED CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs,
v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC, and
CHICANOS POR LA CAUSA, INC.,
DefendantDefendants.
Plaintiffs Alicia Marshall, Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend, Nancilee Holland, Leona
Owsley, Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana Dervin, Kristina Henderson, Dustin Innis, Kelly Stalnaker
and Jamie Jones (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, file this Second Amended Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand for damages and
equitable relief arising from the failure ofagainst defendants Prestamos CDFI, LLC (“Defendant”
or “Prestamos”) and Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. (“CPLC”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for
their respective roles in failing to fund approved Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP” or the
“Program”) loans. In support, Plaintiffs make the following allegations based upon information
and belief except as to the allegations pertaining to the Plaintiffs which are based on personal
knowledge. Plaintiffs’ information and belief is based, among other things, on the ongoing
investigation of their undersigned counsel which included, without limitation, a review of
applicable documents, publicly-available information concerning the PPP and PPP loans, and

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 98 of 175

media and other information, including information available on the Internet. Plaintiffs believe
that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for their allegations after a reasonable
opportunity for discovery.
Summary of the Claims
1.

Following the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19, Congress passed the

Administered by the United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”), the

PPP was established to provide hundreds of billions of dollars of potentially forgivable loans to
small businesses and sole proprietors in a quick and efficient manner.
3.

To ensure that small businesses and sole proprietors received PPP loan proceeds

quickly, the applicable provisions of the PPP required lenders to fund PPP loans within ten days
of SBA approval.
4.

Lenders that participated in the Program were entitled to fees payable by the SBA

for each PPP loan the lenders processed.
5.

Defendant Prestamos was one of the SBA’s authorized PPP lenders.

In 2020, Prestamos processed 935 PPP loans totaling less than $27 million gross,

thereby reportedly receiving $1.3 million in fees.
7.

Defendant Prestamos is and during all times relevant was wholly owned by

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 99 of 175

companies as one and the same and repeatedly referred to them as “CPLC Prestamos” in CPLC’s
Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Annual Report “A Chance to Change the World.” See CPLC FY19-20,
Annual Report, at 7, available at https://cplc.org/assets/files/publications/CPLC%20FY1920%20Annual-Report.pdf (last visited May 1, 2022)) (“During the pandemic, CPLC Prestamos
is administering Paycheck Protection (PPP) loans to help small businesses keep their doors
open.”) (emphasis added); reported on CPLC’s own financial statements that it received
hundreds of millions of dollars in PPP loan processing fees; and is headquartered in a building
that is virtually adjacent to Prestamos’s headquarters. See https://cplc.org/ (CPLC located in
Phoenix at 1112 E. Buckeye Road); https://www.prestamosloans.org/phoenix/ (Prestamos
located in Phoenix at 1024 E. Buckeye Road). In addition, CPLC is or was represented in
connection with two subpoenas Plaintiffs issued to CPLC by the same law firm that represents
Prestamos in this litigation.1
8.

After the SBA substantially increased the fees lenders would receive for PPP

loans made in 2021, CPLC caused Prestamos to exploit that increased fee opportunity by
dramatically ramping up its participation in PPP lending. Defendants were hugely successful in
that respect.
7.9.

In particular, in 2021 alone, Prestamos exponentially expanded its PPP lending,

reportedly processing 494,415 PPP loans totaling over $7.6 billion through May 31, 2021 -more PPP loans than any other lender in 2021, and more than the total number of PPP loans

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 100 of 175

made in 2021 by Bank of America, PNC Bank, TD Bank and Wells Fargo combined. See
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Report: Approvals through 05/31/2021, at p.7, available at
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/PPP_Report_Public_210531-508.pdf (last
accessed Sept.7, available at Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Report: Approvals through
05/31/2021 (sba.gov) (last visited Sept. 21, 2021).
8.10.

As a result, Prestamos has reportedly received nearly $1.2 billion in fees in 2021.

See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacorn-womply.html
(last accessed Sept. 21, 2021See Stacy Crowley & Ella Koeze, How Two Start-Ups Reaped
Billions in Fees on Small Business Relief Loans, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2021, Updated Oct. 11,
2021, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacornwomply.html (last visited May 1, 2022).
11.

Although Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved PPP lender, CPLC and

In particular, according to CPLC’s own Consolidated Financial Statements and

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 101 of 175

Year Ended June 30, 2021, available at
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/11175820211 (last visited May 2, 2022).
9.13.

In flagrant disregard of its contractual obligations to the class member borrowers,

however, Prestamos failed to actually fund class member borrowers’ SBA-approved PPP loans.
10.14. Indeed, Plaintiffs and thousands of others each timely applied for PPP loans with
Prestamos, had their loans approved by the SBA and assigned PPP loan numbers, and yet never
were paid their PPP loan funds by Defendant.
Parties
11.15. Plaintiff Alicia Marshall (“Marshall”), a natural person residing in Sacramento,
California, is a sole proprietor of an in-home healthcare business.
12.16. Plaintiff Daniel Pronsky (“Pronsky”), a natural person residing in Reading,
Pennsylvania, is a sole proprietor of a food catering business.
13.17. Plaintiff Paris Townsend (“Townsend”), a natural person residing in San
Bernadino, California, is a sole proprietor in the business of making and selling hair care
products.
14.18. Plaintiff Nancilee Holland (“Holland”), a natural person residing in Greenwich,
Connecticut, is a sole proprietor of a real estate agency.
15.19. Plaintiff Leona Owsley (“Owsley”), a natural person residing in El Dorado
Springs, Missouri, is a sole proprietor of a construction business.
16.20. Plaintiff Kolawole Ahmadou (“Ahmadou”), a natural person residing in Evanston,
Illinois, is a sole proprietor of an in-home healthcare business.
17.21. Plaintiff Kiana Dervin (“Dervin”), a natural person residing in Lynnwood,
Washington, is a sole proprietor of a janitorial business.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 102 of 175

18.22. Plaintiff Kristina Henderson (“Henderson”), a natural person residing in Macomb,
Michigan, is a sole proprietor of a clothing business.
19.23. Plaintiff Dustin Innis (“Innis”), a natural person residing in Las Vegas, Nevada, is
a sole proprietor of a carpet and upholstery cleaning business.
20.24. Plaintiff Kelly Stalnaker (“Stalnaker”), a natural person presently residing in
Arizona but previously and at all applicable times residing in Ravenna, Ohio, was a sole
proprietor of a homemaker/personal care provider business.
21.25. Plaintiff Jamie Jones (“Jones”), a natural person residing in Golden Valley,
Arizona, is a sole proprietor of a delivery service.
22.26. Defendant Prestamos is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the state of Arizona, having its principal place of business at 1024 E. Buckeye Road, Suite 270,
Phoenix, Arizona 85034, with additional offices in Tucson, Arizona, Las Vegas and Reno,
Nevada, and purportedly Santa Fe, New Mexico, according to its website. SeeSee Prestamos
Locations, available at Prestamos Locations (prestamosloans.org) (last visited December, 17,
2021May 1, 2022).
27.

Defendant CPLC is a corporation also organized under the laws of the state of

Arizona, having its principal place of business at 1112 E. Buckeye Road, Phoenix, Arizona
85034. CPLC is registered in Arizona purportedly as a domestic nonprofit corporation. See Ariz.
Corp. Comm’n, Entity Information, available at
https://ecorp.azcc.gov/BusinessSearch/BusinessInfo?entityNumber=00758057 (last visited
May 1, 2022).
Jurisdiction & Venue
23.28. This Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because at least
one member of the proposed class is a citizen of a different state than defendantdefendants
6

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 103 of 175

Prestamos and CPLC; there are more than 100 members of the proposed class; and the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d)(2)(A).
29.

This Court also has jurisdiction over defendant Prestamos because Prestamos had

More particularly, and for further detail, defendant Prestamos committed to fund

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

31.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 104 of 175

Assuming that each such loan PPP loan generated loan processing fees of at least

$2,500.00 per loan, this means that defendant Prestamos obtained at least $26,382,500.00 in total
PPP loan fees on the backs of resident business owners located in this District (10,533 x
$2,500.00).
32.

In connection with each of the numerous PPP loan agreements and millions of

Further, for each such PPP loan, defendant Prestamos’s role was not limited to

confirm receipt of the borrower certifications in the Form 2483
application;

(2)

confirm receipt of documentation showing employment status of
the applicant or if a business, documents showing employees as of
February 2020;

(3)

confirm the historic payroll (if the applicant had employees) by
examining the documentation submitted; and

(4)

Id. In addition to the above steps, the lender was obligated to ‘review’ each application.
8

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 105 of 175

Id. at 3708 (‘Each lender’s underwriting obligation under the PPP is limited to the items
above and reviewing the ‘Paycheck Protection Borrower Application Form.’).”
34.

Accordingly, this Court also has personal jurisdiction over defendant Prestamos

This Court has jurisdiction over defendant CPLC because CPLC controlled,

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 106 of 175

Additional Factual Allegations
Background Concerning the
COVID-19 Pandemic and the PPP
25.37. On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19
outbreak a “pandemic.” Two days later, on March 13, 2020, the United States declared a national
emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
26.38. In response, on March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed the largest
economic stimulus package in the nation’s history -- the CARES Act. The CARES Act
amounted to over $2 trillion in aid, equivalent to roughly $6,000 per American, or 45% of all
federal government spending for 2019.
27.39. The CARES Act was enacted to provide immediate assistance to individuals,
families, and businesses affected by the COVID-19 emergency.
28.40. One facet of the CARES Act’s approach to economic relief was the PPP.
Recognizing the huge strain that the COVID-19 pandemic would likely impose on American
small businesses, the PPP initially allocated $349 billion for loans to small businesses, sole
proprietors, and nonprofit organizations, among others. These loans were intended to pay up to
eight weeks of payroll costs (including benefits) and could also be used to pay interest on
mortgages, rent, and utilities.
29.41. PPP loans are guaranteed by the SBA, and the PPP provides for loan forgiveness
if the borrower demonstrates that the funds were used in compliance with PPP regulations.
30.42. The PPP has received several legislative renewals, modifications, and extensions.
On April 24, 2020, the President signed the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care
Enhancement Act, which provided additional funding and authority for the PPP. On June 5,
2020, the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 was enacted, extending the
10

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 107 of 175

deferral period for PPP loans, among other provisions. On July 4, 2020, the PPP was further
amended to guarantee PPP loans to August 8, 2020. On December 27, 2020, the Economic Aid
to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act (the “Economic Aid Act”) was
enacted, which further extended the PPP and allowed for the SBA to authorize second-draw PPP
loans through March 31, 2021, available to borrowers who already used their previous PPP loan
proceeds for permitted expenditures. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act was
signed into law, adding an additional $7.25 billion for PPP loans, bringing total appropriations
for the program to $813.7 billion. Finally, on March 30, 2021, the PPP Extension Act was
enacted, which extended the PPP application deadline to May 31, 2021, and gave the SBA until
June 30, 2021 to process loan applications.
31.43. PPP loans are generally available to businesses in operation as of February 15,
2020 that had salaried employees, as well as self-employed individuals. Businesses receiving
PPP loans cannot have more than 500 employees and cannot be in bankruptcy. Further,
applicants are required to certify that the “current economic uncertainty makes this loan request
necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Currently, at least 60% of the
proceeds must be used for payroll costs. The entire amount of any PPP loan is subject to
forgiveness so long as the proceeds are used for eligible expenses.
32.44. Under the Economic Aid Act, a PPP borrower is entitled to a second draw under
narrower conditions than its first draw. For example, a second draw borrower must have 300 or
fewer employees, must demonstrate that it sustained a certain percentage reduction in its gross
receipts compared to 2019, and must have used its entire first draw proceeds prior to
disbursement of its second draw proceeds. Second draw loans -- like first draw loans -- are also
subject to forgiveness.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 108 of 175

33.45. Given the anticipated volume of PPP loan applications, Congress provided for
PPP loan processing and funding through private lenders, with the SBA paying these lenders a
fee for each processed PPP loan.
34.46. For their participation, the PPP originally provided that lenders would receive fees
at a rate of five percent for loans $350,000.00 or less, three percent for loans between
$350,000.00 and $2,000,000.00, and one percent for loans over $2,000,000.00. See SBA
Procedural Notice, Control No. 5000-20091 (Feb. 8, 2021), available at
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/Procedural%20Notice%205000-20091%20-SBA
Procedural Notice: Second Updated PPP Processing Fee and 1502 Reporting (last accessed Sept.
17, 2021).
%202nd%20Updated%20PPP%20Processing%20Fee%20and%201502%20Reporting-508.pdf
(last accessed Sept. 17, 2021).
35.47. To address institutional lenders’ neglecting of PPP loan applications from many
small businesses -- especially minority, underserved, veteran, and women-owned businesses -- in
favor of larger PPP loans, the Economic Aid Act added that lenders processing loans of up to
$50,000.00 would receive an increased fee of fifty percent or $2,500.00, whichever is less, per
PPP loan beginning December 27, 2020.
36.48. As the vast majority of PPP loans -- even those to the smallest businesses and sole
proprietors -- exceeded $5,000.00, PPP lenders received a flat fee of $2,500.00 for virtually
every PPP loan less than $50,000.00.
37.49. On February 8, 2021, the SBA issued a new notice setting forth the procedure for
how lenders would be paid PPP loan fees by the SBA. Id. To apply for a PPP loan, a
prospective borrower would have to submit a standardized Borrower Application Form issued by
the SBA (SBA Form 2483 for first time borrowers, and SBA Form 2483-SD for second draw
12

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 109 of 175

borrowers), together with relevant payroll documentation, to a lender. Once the lender reviewed
and approved the loan application, the lender would submit the application to the SBA for
approval.
38.50. Following SBA approval of an application, the SBA would issue a ten-digit loan
identification number (known as a “GP [General Program] number”) for the borrower’s loan.
39.51. Provided that the borrower had executed the loan documents, the lender was
required to disburse the PPP funds within ten days of SBA approval and assignment of the loan
number.
40.52. If the PPP borrower did not sign and submit all of the required documents to the
lender, then the PPP lender was required to report the loan and corresponding loan number as
cancelled no later than twenty days from the SBA approval and assignment of the loan number.
41.53. Lenders’ compliance with the above PPP funding requirement was of paramount
importance to applicants and borrowers for reasons beyond their need to get the PPP loan
proceeds in a timely manner.
42.54. Once the SBA approved a PPP loan and assigned it a loan number, the applicant
could not apply for a PPP loan with any other lender because the applicant could not make all of
the required certifications on another PPP loan application. Thus, once approved, the borrower
was essentially “stuck” with the lender to whom it applied for the PPP loan, meaning that the
borrower had to rely exclusively on the good faith of the lender to actually fund the loan.
43.55. For both first draw and second draw PPP loans, a PPP loan applicant had to
certify that they had not and would not receive another first draw or second draw loan,
respectively.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 110 of 175

44.56. Since the lender’s obligation to fund a PPP loan ran from the date the SBA
approved and assigned a loan number, an applicant could not certify to another lender that they
would not receive the first loan even if the first lender had failed to timely fund the loan.
45.57. Once a PPP loan was funded, the lender had ten days to submit an SBA Form
1502 to report to the SBA that the loan proceeds had been disbursed.
46.58. After the lender submitted a Form 1502 reporting the PPP loan proceeds as
disbursed, the SBA would initiate payment of the processing fee to the lender.
47.59. By submitting a Form 1502, the lender represented to the SBA that the PPP loan
had been fully funded. Further, a lender was required to update the SBA with monthly Form
1502 reports detailing each PPP loan’s status.
Background Concerning Defendant PrestamosDefendants
48.60. According to its website, Prestamos purports to be “your partner in economic
development, small business growth and quality job creation.” See Prestamos CDFI, available at
https://www.prestamosloans.org/ (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021visited May 1, 2022). Also,
according to its website, Prestamos provides loan products and consulting services that “are
designed for the emerging business owner seeking funding.” Id.
49.61. Prestamos is a Community Development Financial Institution (“CDFI”). CDFIs
were established as part of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement
Act of 1994. See What Are CDFIs, available at
https://www.cdfifund.gov/sites/cdfi/files/documents/cdfi_infographic_v08a.pdf (last accessed
Sept. 17, 2021).visited May 1, 2022). There are reportedly 1,000 CDFIs operating nationwide.
Id.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

62.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 111 of 175

Prestamos is owned by Chicanos Por La Causa Inc. (“defendant CPLC”)..

Although CPLC ispurports to be a domestic nonprofit corporation organized under Arizona law
with , it states on its headquarterswebsite that “CPLC owns and manages mission-driven forprofit subsidiaries, whose income helps to fund our nonprofit charitable initiatives.” See CPLS,
Who We Are, available at 1112 E. https://cplc.org/about/about.php (last visited May 1, 2022).
63.

Further, as a nonprofit, CPLC is exempt from income tax provided it complies

with applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Service (the “IRS”). CPLC also is obligated to file with the IRS each year a Form 990
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax, including a Schedule A Public Charity Status
and Public Support, among other things.
64.

CPLC’s 2019 Form 990 reported total revenues for the tax year beginning July 1,

Adame serves as CPLC’s President and CEO; Nunez serves as CPLC’s Executive

Vice President and CFO; and Max Gonzales (“Gonzales”) serves as CPLC’s Executive Vice
President and Strategy & Relationship Management. See CPLC, Leadership, available at

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 112 of 175

https://cplc.org/about/leadership.php (last visited May 1, 2022). In addition, and at all times
relevant, Adame, Gonzales and Nunez were the sole members of defendant Prestamos’s
governing Board of Directors. See Prestamos CDFI, About Us, available at
https://www.prestamosloans.org/about-prestamos/ (last visited May 1, 2022). CPLC’s Board
Members at large Jose Antonio Habre and Dan Hernandez also served on Prestamos’s
Community Advisory Board. Id.
66.

Further, Defendants shared not just common board of director membership but

also senior executives. For example, at all times relevant CPLC’s Executive Vice President
Economic Development was Jose Martinez (“Martinez”). See CPLC, Leadership, available at
https://cplc.org/about/leadership.php (last visited May 1, 2022). Accord Jose Martinez, LinkedIn,
available at https://www.linkedin.com/ in/jose-martinez-a7173b52/details/experience/ (last
visited May 1, 2022). Also at all times relevant, Martinez simultaneously served as President of
defendant Prestamos and actually signed in his capacity as President of Prestamos the standard
“Notice – No Oral Agreements” form that accompanied the notes Plaintiffs and other SBAapproved borrowers entered into with Prestamos to obtain their PPP loan agreements. See
Exhibit A attached hereto. In fact, Martinez’s email address used in connection with Prestamos’s
PPP lending was at his address at cplc.org.
67.

Defendants also promoted and referred to each other and held themselves out

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 113 of 175

2022) (emphasis added). Similarly, in CPLC’s fiscal year 2019 – 2020 Annual Report, CPLC
repeatedly referred to the two Defendants as one, stating as follows:
CPLC Prestamos is filling a critical need to help small businesses keep the
lights on during COVID-19. CPLC Prestamos was formed to serve small
business in low-income communities and Latino and minority-owned
businesses. We provide capital to businesses that don’t have banking
relationships or might not qualify for loans. During the pandemic, CPLC
Prestamos is administering Paycheck Protection (PPP) loans to help small
businesses keep their doors open. We ramped up our operations, serving
more than 900 businesses and deploying $26 million in capital to save
almost 4,000 jobs.
See CPLC FY19-20, Annual Report, at 7, available at
https://cplc.org/assets/files/publications/CPLC%20FY19-20%20Annual-Report.pdf (emphasis
added) (last visited May 1, 2022).
50.68. CPLC also reflected its control over Prestamos in CPLC’s Consolidated Financial
Statements and Supplementary Information for the fiscal year July 1, 2019 – June 30, 2020 (the
“Financial Statements”). For example, CPLC stated in those Financial Statements as follows:
“Starting in May 2020, the Organization began participating in the Paycheck Protection
Program. Loan origination fees associated with PPP loans are deferred and amortized through the
earlier of SBA forgiveness obtained or through the term of the loan.” See ProPublica, Chicanos
Por La Causa Inc., at 18 available at
https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/display_audit/11175820211 (emphasis added) (last
visited May 1, 2022). Similarly, while later also stating in those Financial Statements that
defendant Prestamos “participated in” PPP lending, CPLC also stated in that very same
paragraph regarding PPP loan processing fees that, “[a]s of June 30, 2021, the Organization
received $314,260,826 from SBA, $5,086,196 was recognized as loan fee revenue and

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 114 of 175

$309,174,630 was recorded as deferred revenue.” Id. at 20 (emphasis added).Buckeye Road,
Phoenix, Arizona 85034.
51.69. Prestamos represents on its website that, as a CDFI, it is “dedicated to helping
economic growth in underserved areas by providing financing solutions to businesses and
economic development projects.” See Prestamos CDFI, available at
https://www.prestamosloans.org/ (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021visited May 1, 2022).
52.70. Since many sole proprietors’ PPP loans were in amounts less than $10,000.00,
PPP lenders like Prestamos were generating processing fees of only several hundred dollars for
making those loans in 2020.
53.71. Pursuant to the new 2021 increased fee schedule, however, lenders like Prestamos
could count on collecting a $2,500.00 flat fee for nearly every PPP loan less than $50,000.00.
54.72. Taking into consideration the incredible demand for PPP loans less than
$50,000.00 by sole proprietors, independent contractors, self-employed individuals and other
underserved small businesses together with the more lucrative fee schedule, Prestamos saw an
opportunity to obtain enormous amounts of lender fees by booking a high volume of PPP loans
under $50,000.00.
55.73. CPLC and/or Prestamos reportedly contracted with Blue Acorn PPP, LLC (and/or
its affiliate FinCap, Inc. or their affiliates) (“Blueacorn”) in 2021 and potentially other third
parties to help identify borrowers to whom Prestamos could make PPP loans and assist in the
PPP paperwork process.
56.74. Blueacorn was created in 2020.
57.75. Blueacorn is neither a bank nor a lender and, therefore, cannot actually make PPP
loans.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 115 of 175

58.76. In general, only SBA section 7(a)-approved lenders were approved to make PPP
loans, together with any additional lenders determined by the Administrator of the SBA and the
Secretary of the U.S. Treasury to also be qualified to make such loans. See 86 FED. REG. 3692
(Jan. 14, 2021), available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/14/202100451/business-loan-program-temporary-changes-paycheck-protection-program-as-amended-byeconomic-aid-act (last accessed Sept. 17, 202114, 2021), available at Federal Register ::
Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program as Amended by
Economic Aid Act (last visited May 1, 2022).
59.77. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated class member borrowers
contracted with Prestamos as the lender obligated to make the PPP loans.
60.78. For its role in identifying potential borrowers and helping with the PPP
paperwork, Blueacorn reportedly received a part of the lender’s fees pursuant to a separate
contractual relationship between the lender and Blueacorn. See THE NEW YORK TIMESStacy
Crowley & Ella Koeze, How Two Start-Ups Reaped Billions in Fees on Small Business Relief
Loans (, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2021),, Updated Oct. 11, 2021, available at
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacornhttps://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacorn-womply.html (last
visited May 1, 2022).
womply.html (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021).
AsDefendants Exploit PPP Lending

79.

At all times relevant, CPLC and its senior executives, including Adame, Gonzales

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 116 of 175

plan for Prestamos to dramatically ramp up its PPP lending activity so that Defendants could be
enriched thereby.
61.80. Defendants succeeded in that respect. In particular as noted above,
PrestamosDefendants exploited the increased fees to be paid by the SBA on smaller PPP loans in
2021 by reportedly agreeinghaving Prestamos agree to fund 494,415 PPP loans totaling over
$7.6 billion in loan proceeds -- more loans than any other lender, and more loans than Bank of
America, PNC Bank, TD Bank and Wells Fargo combined. See SBA, Paycheck Protection
Program (PPP) Report, Approvals through 5/31/2021, p. 7, available at
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/PPP_Report_Public_210531-508.pdf (last
visited May 1, 2022).
accessed Sept. 17, 2021).
62.81. As a result, Prestamos reportedly generated nearly $1.2 billion in PPP loan fees in
2021. See THE NEW YORK TIMESStacy Crowley & Ella Koeze, How Two Start-Ups Reaped
Billions in Fees on Small Business Relief Loans (, N.Y. Times, June 27, 2021),, Updated Oct. 11,
2021, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppp-relief-loans-blueacornwomply.html (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021visited May 1, 2022) (“Last year, Prestamos made
$1.3 million for its lending. This year, it will collect nearly $1.2 billion, according to a New York
Times calculation of lenders’ fees based on government data.”).
82.

Further, according to CPLC’s own Financial Statements, defendant Prestamos

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 117 of 175

SBA, $5,086,196 was recognized as loan fee revenue and $309,174,630 was recorded as deferred
revenue.”) (emphasis added).
83.

Even though Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved PPP lender, CPLC

In sum, CPLC participated directly in Prestamos’s PPP lending even though

Prestamos and not CPLC was the SBA-approved lender; controlled and directed Prestamos’s
PPP lending activities through its common management and control and 100% ownership of
Prestamos; exploited Prestamos’s status as the SBA-approved PPP lender; enriched itself by
causing Prestamos to upstream to CPLC hundreds of millions of dollars in PPP loan processing
fees including on the backs of Plaintiffs and other class members whose SBA-approved PPP
loans Prestamos reported as funded to obtain the PPP loan processing fees but were, in fact, not
funded; and, in turn, improperly enriched itself and its leadership from a federally-funded
program designed to actually help small minority, women and other business putative class
member owners whose businesses were struggling amid the COVID-19 pandemic and whose
mission Defendants purported to serve.
21

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

85.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 118 of 175

Adame even touted the success of the two companies’ PPP lending publicly in

the media, stating as follows: “’What we did together is absolutely incredible,’ said David
Adame, the chief executive of Chicanos Por La Cause, the parent organization of Prestamos.
’The myth that you can’t serve communities of color, or underserved communities, with a
technology model, at scale - we’ve blown that away.’” See Stacy Crowley & Ella Koeze, How
Two Start-Ups Reaped Billions in Fees on Small Business Relief Loans, N.Y. Times, June 27,
2021, Updated Oct. 11, 2021, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/27/business/ppprelief-loans-blueacorn-womply.html (last visited May 1, 2022)
Prestamos’s Participation in the
PPP Liquidity Facility
63.86. To facilitate lending under the SBA’s PPP, the Federal Reserve supplied liquidity
to Prestamos and other participating financial institutions through term financing to be secured
by the PPP loans. See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Paycheck Protection
Program Liquidity Facility (PPPLF), available at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/ppplf.htm (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021visited
May 1, 2022).
64.87. In particular, the Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity Facility (“PPPLF”) was
authorized under § 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act “to facilitate lending by eligible borrowers
[i.e., PPP lenders] to small businesses under the [PPP]. … Under the Facility, the Federal
Reserve Banks (‘Reserve Banks’) will lend to eligible borrowers [i.e., PPP lenders] on a nonrecourse basis, taking PPP Loans as collateral.” See Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity
Facility Term Sheet, available at
https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20210625a1.pdf (last
accessed Sept. 17, 2021visited May 1, 2022).
22

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 119 of 175

65.88. Further, “[a]ll lenders that are eligible to originate PPP Loans are eligible to
borrow under the Facility.” Id.
66.89. For Prestamos and other qualified CDFI PPP lenders, the lending Federal Reserve
Bank was the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Id.
67.90. Only SBA-guaranteed PPP loans are eligible to serve as collateral for PPPLF
advances, and the principal amount advanced under the PPPLF was to be equal to the principal
amount of the PPP loan pledged to secure the extension of credit. Id.
68.91. Prestamos received billions of dollars of advances through the PPPLF as specified
more fully below.
69.92. In fact, although the PPP application period ended on May 31, 2021 and the life
cycle of a PPP loan application should only take a few business days, Prestamos continued to
receive huge advances through the PPPLF between June 30, 2021 and July 30, 2021, after the
deadline for processing loan applications.
70.93. For example, on June 30, 2021 alone, Prestamos received PPPLF cash advances
of approximately $118,743,226.
71.94. In particular, according to a report by the Federal Reserve to the U.S. Congress
dated September 13, 2021 “PPPLF Transaction-specific Disclosures (XLSX),” Prestamos
received the following specific cash advances from the PPPLF:
received the following specific cash advances from the PPPLF:
Date of Advance

Amount

2020-05-15

$839,761.76

2020-05-19

$6,047,880.04

2020-05-20

$862,834.00

2020-05-22

$1,156,497.62
23

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 120 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2020-05-27

$416,800.54

2020-05-29

$696,356.87

2020-06-01

$492,218.22

2020-06-03

$244,555.74

2020-06-04

$559,762.54

2020-06-08

$11,242.95

2020-06-08

$559,314.27

2020-06-08

$63,848.04

2020-06-08

$614,343.47

2020-06-26

$177,591.04

2020-06-26

$221,991.60

2020-06-26

$198,670.00

2020-06-26

$285,888.69

2020-06-26

$103,249.00

2020-06-26

$348,119.55

2020-06-30

$210,223.83

2020-07-01

$303,478.31

2020-07-01

$486,363.72

2020-07-01

$829,175.81

2020-07-07

$1,639,353.02

2020-07-09

$1,070,316.28

2020-07-14

$320,769.72

2020-07-14

$320,335.47

2020-07-31

$598,038.85

2020-07-31

$1,585,572.39

2020-07-31

$333,622.00

2020-08-11

$1,027,167.09

2020-08-11

$1,819,532.00

2020-08-11

$256,166.50

2020-09-22

$1,209,795.10
24

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 121 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2020-09-23

$47,152.00

2020-09-23

$322,815.25

2020-09-23

$112,162.00

2020 Total

$26,392,965.28

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-01-29

$186,091.00

2021-02-04

$2,706,582.04

2021-02-08

$2,633,372.65

2021-02-09

$2,974,669.86

2021-02-18

$3,270,876.03

2021-02-18

$1,405,472.00

2021-02-23

$2,955,206.00

2021-02-26

$2,975,445.15

2021-03-10

$1,137,906.71

2021-03-10

$574,411.00

2021-03-18

$285,612.00

2021-03-18

$1,920,037.00

2021-03-24

$1,376,450.00

2021-03-24

$1,394,589.00

2021-04-05

$2,036,898.00

2021-04-14

$1,857,735.83

2021-04-14

$1,218,922.00

2021-04-14

$2,080,722.00

2021-04-14

$549,184.00

2021-04-19

$2,781,743.00

2021-04-27

$2,385,498.00

2021-05-05

$542,247,559.00

2021-05-07

$977,283,838.00

2021-05-11

$219,875,856.00

2021-05-12

$11,638,792.00
25

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 122 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-05-12

$15,011,946.00

2021-05-12

$22,711,165.00

2021-05-14

$261,721,437.00

2021-05-14

$71,807,843.00

2021-05-14

$9,724,231.00

2021-05-14

$5,800,825.00

2021-05-14

$1,394,114.00

2021-05-14

$3,236,837.00

2021-05-17

$2,820,014.00

2021-05-17

$2,000,798.00

2021-05-18

$3,013,786.00

2021-05-18

$3,094,488.00

2021-05-19

$752,007,807.00

2021-05-20

$24,508,694.00

2021-05-20

$129,048,483.00

2021-05-21

$383,962,452.00

2021-05-24

$553,643,404.00

2021-05-26

$287,698,867.00

2021-05-26

$78,487,436.00

2021-05-26

$21,918,317.00

2021-05-26

$6,212,247.00

2021-05-26

$8,109,147.00

2021-05-28

$8,589,635.00

2021-05-28

$11,371,049.00

2021-05-28

$184,579,114.00

2021-06-02

$25,025,683.00

2021-06-02

$363,445,193.00

2021-06-03

$487,925,246.00

2021-06-04

$55,686,186.00

2021-06-08

$278,866,006.00
26

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 123 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-06-08

$52,432,880.00

2021-06-09

$674,168,631.00

2021-06-10

$235,611,832.00

2021-06-15

$24,013,181.00

2021-06-15

$8,772,946.00

2021-06-15

$10,593,069.00

2021-06-15

$13,035,119.00

2021-06-15

$8,866,293.00

2021-06-17

$13,428,841.00

2021-06-17

$5,676,633.00

2021-06-18

$6,658,965.00

2021-06-18

$2,304,017.00

2021-06-18

$2,397,599.00

2021-06-18

$6,799,943.00

2021-06-18

$4,549,067.00

2021-06-21

$11,740,892.00

2021-06-22

$5,148,262.00

2021-06-24

$2,473,148.00

2021-06-24

$2,672,552.00

2021-06-24

$12,965,069.00

2021-06-24

$41,186,983.00

2021-06-24

$16,493,297.00

2021-06-30

$7,453,648.00

2021-06-30

$110,650,628.00

2021-06-30

$638,950.00

2021-07-02

$41,664.00

2021-07-02

$435,987.00

2021-07-02

$540,429.00

2021-07-07

$329,417.00

2021-07-07

$62,496.00
27

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 124 of 175

Date of Advance

Amount

2021-07-12

$149,699.00

2021-07-12

$176,781.00

2021-07-14

$7,871,678.00

2021-07-29

$20,832.00

2021-07-30

$598,787.00

2021 Total

$7,144,136,133.27

See Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Paycheck Protection Program Liquidity
Facility (PPPLF), available at https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/ppplf.htm (last
accessed Sept. 17, 2021)
visited May 1, 2022).
72.95. As alleged below, while Prestamos received over $7.1 billion from the PPPLF in
2021 alone, Prestamos unjustifiably failed to disburse PPP loan funds approved by the SBA to
Plaintiffs and numerous other SBA-approved borrower members of the proposed class.
73.96. Prestamos failed to disburse the proceeds of class member approved loans despite
having actually received the unfunded PPP loan proceeds from the PPPLF and other sources.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Marshall’s PPP Loan
74.97. When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Marshall was, and continues to
be, in the business of providing in-home healthcare in the Sacramento, California area.
75.98. Due to the pandemic, Marshall was not able to provide in-home care with the
same frequency and, as a result, lost significant income.
76.99. On or about April 21, 2021, Marshall applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.
Marshall submitted all requested documentation and information, including but not limited to the

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 125 of 175

standard form Note and accompanying documents that all class member borrowers similarly
submitted to Prestamos.
77.100.

Plaintiff Marshall and class members formed binding and enforceable

agreements with Prestamos when they completed and submitted the Note and other applicable
accompanying documents to Prestamos.
78.101.

In particular, the Note also included an Additional and Correction

Documents Agreement (Errors and Omissions Agreement) (the “Additional Agreement”)
between Prestamos and plaintiff Marshall; a Business Purpose Statement; a Notice - No Oral
Agreements bearing the signature of Prestamos’s President Jose Martinez (“Martinez”) and
plaintiff Marshall; a Written Consent of Governing Body form for Marshall to represent that she
is authorized to receive the loan and on which Prestamos may rely; an IRS W-9 Request for
Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification; and an Information and Bank Account
Certification and Authorization form identifying the bank or other account to which Prestamos
would send the funds (collectively, the “Loan Documents”).
79.102.

On or about April 22, 2021, the SBA approved Marshall’s PPP loan

application and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8282208801).
80.103.

Marshall was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $7,915.00.

81.104.

The Note identified the SBA loan number and amount, defendant

Prestamos as the lender and plaintiff Marshall as the borrower; set forth payment terms, potential
events of default, Prestamos’s rights in the event of default, and other terms and conditions; and
provided the terms for plaintiff Marshall to repay the loan to Prestamos if it was not forgiven,
among other things.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

82.105.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 126 of 175

On April 29, 2021, Marshall signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $7,915.00 PPP loan.
83.106.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents and multiple additional attempts to obtain the loan proceeds, Marshall never received
the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
84.107.

Marshall also took additional steps to obtain her SBA-approved loan. For

example, on August 2, 2021, Marshall contacted her local SBA office about Prestamos’s failure
to fund her PPP loan.
85.108.

Similarly, on August 3, 2021, Marshall emailed the SBA to again pursue

funding of her PPP loan.
86.109.

On August 3, 2021, the SBA office responded and provided Marshall with

the following information about her PPP loan:
Alicia Marshall West Sacramento CA Amount $7,915 Status Disbursed Current
Loan 82822088-01
87.110.

App 29343623

Funded 04/22/2021[.]

Marshall also continued her attempts to collect the PPP loan proceeds

directly with Prestamos. For example, on September 4, 2021, Marshall emailed Prestamos’s
President Martinez stating that “I was SBA approved on April 22nd 2021 and I signed a
promissory note with you on April 29th 2021”; that “I understand there is a lot of fraud going on
but my business is legitimate”; that “I don’t understand why my loan was approved money was
sent and now its cancelled”; that “I would appreciate if you can explain this to me or look into it
and see what went wrong”; and that “I would hope that you being president of a rapidly growing
respected business would not want any of your customers to have a negative experience dealing
with your company so I have faith that you will be able to resolve this issue promptly!”

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

88.111.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 127 of 175

Although the SBA’s records reported that plaintiff Marshall’s PPP loan

had actually been funded, Marshall never received any PPP loan proceeds despite her repeated
attempts to actually get funded.
89.112.

The SBA’s record of the alleged disbursement of Marshall’s loan proceeds

was presumably based on data Prestamos provided to the SBA.
90.113.

Thus, while Prestamos agreed to extend credit to Marshall by identifying

itself as her lender in the Note -- that is, fund her SBA-approved loan -- Prestamos never actually
extended credit to Marshall because it failed to fund her PPP loan.
91.114.

In fact, on September 21, 2021, the SBA sent an email to plaintiff

Marshall stating that she is eligible to apply “for PPP Direct Forgiveness because your lender has
opted in and you have a PPP loan amount of $150,000 or less.”
92.115.

Despite the SBA’s September 21, 2021 email inviting plaintiff Marshall to

apply for loan forgiveness and Marshall’s repeated attempts to get funding, however, plaintiff
Marshall never received any PPP loan proceeds.
93.116.

Having properly completed and returned all required Loan Documents,

plaintiff Marshall and all class members were entitled to timely disbursement of their PPP loan
funds.
94.117.

Having not timely disbursed plaintiff Marshall’s and other class members’

PPP loan funds, Prestamos was obligated to timely and properly cancel their PPP loan requests.
95.118.

Prestamos has neither disbursed PPP loan funds to plaintiff Marshall and

the members of the class nor canceled their loan requests.
96.119.

Prestamos’s failure to fund the loan requests of plaintiff Marshall and the

class or timely cancel them after failing to properly fund the loans also prevented plaintiff

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 128 of 175

Marshall and the members of the class from pursuing their loan requests with another PPP
lender.
97.120.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Marshall’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Marshall of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her in-home healthcare
business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
98.121.

Prestamos’s failure to disburse PPP loan funds to plaintiff Marshall and

the members of the class after agreeing to do so, has left plaintiff Marshall and the class
members potentially obligated by way of the parties’ contractual agreements set forth in the Loan
Documents to repay funds they never received.
99.122.

Plaintiff Marshall and other members of the class have also been injured in

that the loan forgiveness requires affirming, under threat of criminal penalty, that PPP loan funds
were used in a particular manner and plaintiff Marshall and other members of the class cannot
affirm the nature of the use of funds they never received.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Pronsky’s PPP Loan
100.123.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Pronsky was, and

continues to be, in the barbeque catering business in the Reading, Pennsylvania area.
101.124.

Plaintiff Pronsky was, and is, in the business of operating a barbeque

catering business in and around Reading, Pennsylvania.
102.125.

Due to the pandemic, Pronsky’s catering business lost significant income.

103.126.

Accordingly, in or about May 2021, Pronsky also applied for a PPP loan.

104.127.

On May 27, 2021, the SBA approved Pronsky’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 4628549010).
105.128.

Pronsky was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $8,332.00.
32

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

106.129.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 129 of 175

Also on May 27, 2021, Pronsky received the same form PPP loan

promissory Note and accompanying additional Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had also
received.
107.130.

Additionally, on May 27, 2021, Pronsky signed and returned the Loan

Documents in order to obtain the $8,332.00 PPP loan.
108.131.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Pronsky never received the proceeds of his SBA-approved PPP loan.
109.132.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Pronsky’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Pronsky of funds that would have assisted in the operation of his catering business and resulted
in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Townsend’s PPP Loan
110.133.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Townsend was, and

continues to be, in the business of making and selling hair care products in the San Bernadino,
California area.
111.134.

Due to the pandemic, Townsend’s hair care business lost significant

income.
112.135.

Accordingly, on or about May 6, 2021, Townsend applied for a PPP loan.

113.136.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Townsend’s PPP loan application

and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 4476579008).
114.137.

Townsend was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $20,012.00.

115.138.

On or about May 27, 2021, Townsend received the same form PPP loan

promissory Note and accompanying additional Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had also
received.
33

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

116.139.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 130 of 175

Additionally, on May 27, 2021, Townsend signed and returned the Loan

Documents in order to obtain the $20,012.00 PPP loan.
117.140.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Townsend never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
118.141.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Townsend’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Holland was, and

continues to be, in the real estate business in the Greenwich, Connecticut area.
120.143.

Due to the pandemic, Holland’s real estate business lost significant

income.
121.144.

In or about May 2021, Holland applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Holland submitted all requested documentation and information.
122.145.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Holland’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 1427199001).
123.146.

Holland was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $20,832.00.

124.147.

On May 19, 2021, Holland received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
125.148.

Also on May 19, 2021, Holland signed and returned the Loan Documents

in order to obtain the $20,832.00 PPP loan.
126.149.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Holland never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
34

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

127.150.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 131 of 175

Prestamos failed to fund the loan despite additional steps by Holland to

obtain the PPP loan proceeds. For example, Holland wrote an email to Prestamos’s President
Martinez on August 13, 2021 stating that “I applied in May, was approved and signed the
promissory note 19 May”; that “[t]he SBA website shows my funds disbursed as of May”; and
that “I am writing to you to request your assistance in this matter.” Neither Prestamos nor
Martinez responded to Holland’s August 13 email.
128.151.

Holland also sought the assistance of the SBA to obtain funding, and the

SBA, in turn, similarly requested the assistance of Prestamos and its President Martinez.
Specifically, according to a September 20, 2021 email from SBA employee John Xu to Martinez:
“Subject: Nancilee Realty Greenwich CT
Hi Jose,
Ms. Holland contacted SBA regarding her PPP. She stated that the
application was approved but she did not receive the funds.
I found your name under her loan application, and the funds were
disbursed currently in our system as follows.
Can you or your staff look into the case and get it back to her?
Nancilee Realty
Greenwich CT
Amount $20,832
Status Disbursed Client
Loan 14271990-01
App 30585546
Funded 05/13/2021.”
129.152.

Holland still did not receive any response from Prestamos or Martinez in

response to her inquiries.
130.153.

On October 1, 2021 -- the very day this lawsuit was filed -- Holland faxed

a letter to Martinez stating as follows:

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 132 of 175

“1 October, 2021
VIA FACSIMILE TO 602-[ Fax no. omitted]
JOSE MARTINEZ
PRESTAMOS CDFI LLC
1024 E. Buckeye Rd #270
Phoenix, AZ 85034
RE: SBA Loan No. 1427199001
Mr. Martinez:
As evidenced by the attached documents, I was approved by the SBA for a
PPP loan in May, 2020. Due to the issues outlined in the email send [sic]
to you in August, I have still not received my funds. The SBA records
show this payment was disbursed in May.
I have not received a response from you to my email of August 13th. Nor
have you responded to the emails from Mr. Xu of the SBA. Kindly
provide the courtesy of a response. I can be reached at [tel. no. omitted].
Nancilee Holland”
131.154.

Despite Holland’s multiple additional attempts to obtain the loan proceeds,

Prestamos failed to fund Holland’s SBA-approved PPP loan.
132.155.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Holland’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Holland of funds that would have assisted in the operation of her real estate brokerage business
and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Owsley’s PPP Loan
133.156.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Owsley was, and

continues to be, in the construction business in the El Dorado Springs, Missouri area.
134.157.

Due to the pandemic, Owsley’s construction business lost significant

income.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

135.158.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 133 of 175

In or about May 2021, Owsley applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Owsley submitted all requested documentation and information.
136.159.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Owsley’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 4680379004).
137.160.

Owsley was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $6,250.00.

138.161.

On or about May 27, 2021, Owsley received the same form PPP loan

promissory Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
139.162.

On May 27, 2021, Owsley signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $6,250.00 PPP loan.
140.163.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Owsley never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
141.164.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Owsley’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Owsley of funds that would have assisted in the operation of her construction business and
resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Ahmadou’s PPP Loan
142.165.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Ahmadou was, and

continues to be, in the home healthcare business in the Evanston, Illinois area.
143.166.

Due to the pandemic, Ahmadou’s construction business lost significant

income.
144.167.

In or about May 2021, Ahmadou applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Ahmadou submitted all requested documentation and information.
145.168.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Ahmadou’s PPP loan application

and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8166799007).
37

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 134 of 175

146.169.

Ahmadou was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $20,832.00.

147.170.

In May 2021, Ahmadou received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
148.171.

Also in May 2021, Ahmadou signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $20,832.00 PPP loan.
149.172.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Ahmadou never received the proceeds of his SBA-approved PPP loan.
150.173.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Ahmadou’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Dervin was, and continues

to be, in the janitorial business in the Lynwood, Washington area.
152.175.

Due to the pandemic, Dervin’s janitorial business lost significant income.

153.176.

In or about May 2021, Dervin applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Dervin submitted all requested documentation and information.
154.177.

On or about May 14, 2021, the SBA approved Dervin’s PPP loan

application and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 1895529005).
155.178.

Dervin was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $8,385.00.

156.179.

On May 19, 2021, Dervin received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
157.180.

Also on May 19 2021, Dervin signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $8,385.00 PPP loan.
38

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

158.181.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 135 of 175

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Dervin never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
159.182.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Dervin’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Dervin of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her janitorial business and
resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Henderson’s PPP Loan
160.183.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Henderson was, and

continues to be, in the women’s clothing business in the Macomb, Michigan area.
161.184.

Due to the pandemic, Henderson’s women’s clothing business lost

significant income.
162.185.

In or about April 2021, Henderson applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Henderson submitted all requested documentation and information.
163.186.

On or about April 22, 2021, the SBA approved Henderson’s PPP loan

application and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8614908807).
164.187.

Henderson was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $1,875.00.

165.188.

On April 29, 2021, Henderson received the same form PPP loan

promissory Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
166.189.

Also on April 29, 2021, Henderson signed and returned the Loan

Documents in order to obtain the $1,875.00 PPP loan.
167.190.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Henderson never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

168.191.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 136 of 175

Prestamos’s failure to fund Henderson’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Innis was, and continues

to be, in the carpet and upholstery cleaning business in the Las Vegas, Nevada area.
170.193.

Due to the pandemic, Innis’s carpet and upholstery cleaning business lost

significant income.
171.194.

In May 2021, Innis applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Innis

submitted all requested documentation and information.
172.195.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Innis’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8207338903).
173.196.

Innis was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $10,625.00.

174.197.

On May 26, 2021, Innis received the same form PPP loan promissory Note

and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
175.198.

Also on May 26, 2021, Innis signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $10,625.00 PPP loan.
176.199.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Innis never received the proceeds of his SBA-approved PPP loan.
177.200.

Prestamos failed to fund Innis’s PPP loan despite Innis’s repeated

additional attempts to try to get his SBA-approved PPP loan actually funded. For example, in an
October 1, 2021 email to Litza Menendez (“Menendez”), Loan Servicing Specialist for
Prestamos and its parent CPLC, Innis stated as follows:
40

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 137 of 175

“hi so what’s the word!? I’m getting emails from the SBA now about
applying for loan forgiveness. I remember you telling me you will
probably have to send me a prepaid card.”
178.201.

Further, in another email to Menendez on October 12, 2021, Innis stated

as follows (emphasis in original):
“Hello Litza, I’m writing you to give you one more chance to disperse my
money before I file a lawsuit against you. The SBA website is
CURRENT!!! I just got off the phone with them and was told IT IS
CURRENT and that my funds are in someone’s BANK ACCOUNT
THAT ISN’T MINE …… IF YOU THINK IM GOING TO JUST LIE
DOWN AND LET THIS HAPPEN LIKE EVERYONE ELSE U ARE
HIGHLY MISTAKEN……. I knew I wasn’t stupid and did my research
before even contacting you and that your statements were FALSE….. once
again the SBA website IS CURRENT AND SHOWS ME STILL
FUNDED AND THAT MONEY IS IN SOMEONES BANK ACCOUNT
NOT AFFILIATED WITH ME OR BLUE ACORN OR
PRESTAMOS….. DO THE RIGHT THING[.]”
179.202.

Despite even these additional attempts, Prestamos has failed to fund

Innis’s loan.
180.203.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Innis’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived Innis

of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of his carpet and upholstery cleaning
business and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.
Prestamos’s Failure to Fund
Plaintiff Stalnaker’s PPP Loan
181.204.

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Stalnaker was in the

homemaker/personal care provider business in the Ravenna, Ohio area, where she continued to
reside at all applicable times.
182.205.

Due to the pandemic, Stalnaker’s homemaker/personal care provider

business lost significant income.
183.206.

In or about April 2021, Stalnaker applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos.

Stalnaker submitted all requested documentation and information.
41

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

184.207.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 138 of 175

Also in April 2021, the SBA approved Stalnaker’s PPP loan application

and assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 1641908909).
185.208.

Stalnaker was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $9,052.00.

186.209.

On April 29, 2021, Stalnaker received the same form PPP loan promissory

Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
187.210.

Also on April 29, 2021, Stalnaker signed and returned the Loan

Documents in order to obtain the $9,052.00 PPP loan.
188.211.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Stalnaker never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
189.212.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Stalnaker’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, plaintiff Jones was, and continues

to be, in the delivery service business in the Golden Valley, Arizona area.
191.214.

Due to the pandemic, Jones’s delivery service lost significant income.

192.215.

In or about May 2021, Jones applied for a PPP loan with Prestamos. Jones

submitted all requested documentation and information.
193.216.

Also in May 2021, the SBA approved Jones’s PPP loan application and

assigned it a loan number (SBA Loan Number 8899718910).
194.217.

Jones was approved for a PPP loan in the amount of $4,130.00.

195.218.

On or about May 30, 2021, Jones received the same form PPP loan

promissory Note and accompanying Loan Documents that plaintiff Marshall had received.
42

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

196.219.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 139 of 175

Also on May 30, 2021, Jones signed and returned the Loan Documents in

order to obtain the $4,130.00 PPP loan.
197.220.

Despite properly and timely completing, signing and submitting the Loan

Documents, Jones never received the proceeds of her SBA-approved PPP loan.
198.221.

In fact, on October 14, 2021 and again on November 2, 2021, the SBA

sent emails to plaintiff Jones stating that she is “eligible for PPP Direct Forgiveness because your
lender has opted in any you have a PPP loan amount of $150,000 OR LESS.”
199.222.

Despite the SBA’s October 14, 2021 and November 2, 2021 emails

inviting plaintiff Jones to apply for loan forgiveness, plaintiff Jones never received any PPP loan
proceeds.
200.223.

As Jones summarized in a complaint she filed with the BBB on

November 4, 2021:
“I filed and was approved for a PPP loan on April 25th 2021for the amount
of $4130 waited a month started sending emails with no responses besides
the automated ticket creation and a few emails stating that the support
email was no longer active then received loan documents on May 26, 2021
it has been non-stop back and forth with no actual responses or funding
received and now I’m receiving emails from the SBA to file for
forgiveness on a loan I never received”
201.224.

Prestamos’s failure to fund Jones’s SBA-approved PPP loan deprived

Jones of funds that would have directly assisted in the operation of her delivery service business
and resulted in lost opportunities and other consequential damages.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 140 of 175

Prestamos’s Failure to Fund Other
SBA-Approved Class Member
Borrower PPP Loans
202.225.

Numerous other similarly situated borrowers have been damaged by

Prestamos’s failure to fund their SBA-approved PPP loans and have complained about their
experiences to the BBB and via social media sites.
203.226.

For example, the BBB’s website identifies a number of complaints against

Prestamos:2
a.

“I was notified on June 2, 2021 that my loan would be funded by
Prestamos CDFI, LLC within 3-6 business days. … I have never been
funded.” (August 2, 2021 post);

Emphasis is in the original in this Complaint unless otherwise noted or the context
otherwise requires.
44

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 141 of 175

into a contract with Prestamos. They are continuing to accrue interest for
over a month now that I owe on money I never received.” (July 7, 2021);
f.

See BBB, Prestamos CDFI LLC, available at
https://www.bbb.org/us/az/phoenix/profile/loans/prestamos-cdfi-llc-11261000084982/complaints (last accessed Sept. 17, 2021).
See BBB, Prestamos CDFI LLC, available at Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better
Business Bureau® Profile (bbb.org) (last visited May 1, 2022).
204.227.

Similarly, according to complaints posted publicly on the Internet:

“I’m pissed I signed 5/27 and still nothing no emails no nothing I call
prestamos they say call blue acorn I call them they say the same shit
45

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 142 of 175

somebody help me before I lose my entire business please!” (July 2, 2021)
Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueAcornPrestamos/comments/occrqy/im_piss
ed_i_signed_527_and_still_nothing_no/https://www.reddit.com/r/BlueAc
ornPrestamos/comments/occrqy/im_pissed_i_signed_527_and_still_nothi
ng_no/;
c.

“I GOT EVERYTHING, SIGNED AND WAS WAITING FOR MY
DISBURSEMENT. LAST NIGHT I RECEIVED AN EMAIL & TEXT
SAYING THAT MY ID WAS BLURRY AND MY IDENTITY
NEEDED TO BE VERIFIED. I DID ALL THAT (AFTER OVER A
HOUR OF CRASHING) JUST TO HAVE MY BA STATUS START
BACK AT STAGE 1 AND NOW I AM NOT IN FUNDING STATUS
ANYMORE. I AM BEYOND PISSED. I HAVE BEEN WAITING
OVER A MONTH.” (DATE) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/Blueacorn/comments/n5dk8y/prestamos_signers
(DATE) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/Blueacorn/comments/n5dk8y/prestamos_signers
_427430/;
_427430/;

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 143 of 175

responses from support and live chat representative just tell me to contact
support which is a dead end. Will I still get funded or will this process be a
long experience? Seems like it’s already been a long time I’m just over it
at this point! Somebody please help.” (July 12, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/EIDLPPP/comments/oitaff/blueacornjune_signe
rsprestamosrejected/;https://www.reddit.com/r/EIDLPPP/comments/oitaff/
blueacornjune_signersprestamosrejected/;
g.

“They keep telling us that our funds are guaranteed, to "REST ASSURED,
YOU WILL BE FUNDED." But, Federal Law states that lenders have 10
calendar days to fund the loan after the PLP or SBA LOAN NUMBER is
granted, and AFTER 20 DAYS, THE LOAN WILL BE CANCELED IF
ALL NECESSARY PAPERWORK IS NOT TURNED IN. Blue Acorn
and Prestamos have made it impossible to get in touch with them ON
PURPOSE, bc they do not plan on doing anymore work to fund anyone,
and they WILL NOT BE REACHING OUT to anyone who is lacking any
paperwork - paperwork THEY NEVER ASKED FOR IN THE FIRST
PLACE!! At this point, I think it would be wise to send in everything you
have (to the SBA? to prestamosinfo@cplc?) that proves you have a
business that was in operation before 2020, ie. bank statements, w-2s,
everything. Still, they will avoid funding your loan like the plague. They
will find some reason for your loan to be denied, even after you have an
SBA loan #, due to the 20 day cancelation clause in the Interim Rules. WE
ARE NOT GOING TO BE FUNDED FOLKS, ITS OVER. SERIOUSLY,
LAWYER UP, BECAUSE THIS IS A VIOLATION OF THE UNFAIR
AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, which pays 3X damages
(triple damages). These companies are betting on us not being legitimate
business owners, and not being able to prove that we are, and moreover,
scared to get the authorities involved.” (June 15, 2021) Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/comments/o0qcxv/blue_acorn_presta
(June 15, 2021) Available at
mos_waiting_until_20_days_passed/https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/c
omments/o0qcxv/blue_acorn_prestamos_waiting_until_20_days_passed/;

“Had the same error issue had to resend my ID as well as answer
verification questions, originally signed on the evening of the 28th, my
47

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 144 of 175

issue is the never reached out me about it I had to reach out and ask them,
hopefully that all I need to do����” (May 5, 2021)). Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/comments/n3x0zj/blueacorn_if_you_
got_your_loan_from_prestamos/https://www.reddit.com/r/PPPLoans/com
ments/n3x0zj/blueacorn_if_you_got_your_loan_from_prestamos/.
j.

l.
l.

Judy Padilla

October 31, 2021

“I was funded and my bank returned it it’s been funded since June 14 but I
still don’t have it”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
48

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

m.
m.

Document 37

Nikki Dailey

Filed 05/02/22

Page 145 of 175

October 30, 2021

“I was also approved by Prestamos CDFI, then denied and never received
funds and SBA is requesting that I apply for forgiveness. They
continuously made up fictitious information regarding the inability to fund
my loan need to join this class action law suit”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Anthonia Johnson

October 27, 2021

p.
p.

Kristin Dailey

October 27, 2021

“Stole my loan my business is about to bankrupt as well how do I add
myself to the class action law suit prestamos cdfi had me sign for loan but
didn’t give it to me”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

q.
q.

Danny Shields

October 21, 2021

“I am actually about to be interviewed next week for a follow up piece to
BlueAcorn/Prestamos PPP loan article that I read that infuriated me so
much I reached out to the reporter and she is doing a follow up article
49

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 146 of 175

based on the massive number of us who were swindled by these
organizations. I too had my signed and approved loan w/ Prestamos and
had my money returned after I was approved and that was keystone issue
that probably links each and everyone of us, the money got returned. Than
instead of standing by Blueacorns whole oh if you are SBA approved,
your funds are earmarked and set aside for you, that was not the case. I
had an assistant of my states SBA representative call me one afternoon
and in a profanity laced provision of facts, advised me of the whole
situation and how they simply moved beyond those unfortunate enough to
have funds returned and continued funding as many as they could.
Hopefully that is the case and they didnt just simply steal the money. But
either way, I am owed money and I have been waiting and aching for this
process of a class action to start, ever since I was blatantly professing to
Blueacorn and Prestamos that it was coming and when I was trying to
spread awareness on Reddit to those naive enough to think this wasnt the
case. Now I see they recently just had mass denials for all those who
continued to submit tickets wondering where their approved loan was in
this shady process. It’s disgusting. I need what I am owed and much more
for the mental anguish and the fact that this was a company federally
backed and advocated who not only didnt do what they claimed but did it
to a certain segment of the populace that at the time were specifically
being targeted to receive this assistant and everyone else was cut off since
their was such a dire need for it amongst the lower classes. All these other
fraudsters and unscrupulous individuals were having a free for all in being
allowed to abuse this program, and when I legitimately provided all
approved and required documentation, I get the third degree and am
denied after having been approved by Blueacorn, a company that
perpetrated fraud outright initially, and now say they are denying me after
doing a secondary review, a review that was done by the SBA and
approved and not within their purview to even attempt. Hopefully this
lawsuit goes after Blueacorn just as much as Prestamos, because you
couldnt even reach Prestamos. Only lender I’ve ever heard of that defers
to the middleman for all servicing, questions or funding after they signed a
contract between myself them and the SBA. Ridiculous. So glad this is
coming to the light because their are hundreds of questions that I demand
be answered!”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Shannon Black

Filed 05/02/22

Page 147 of 175

October 19, 2021

Candace Cook

October 18, 2021

Angela Joya

October 16, 2021

“Yes please add me”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
u.

Dustin Estep

November 22, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Kimberly

Filed 05/02/22

Page 148 of 175

November 13, 2021

Jacqueline Smith

November 12, 2021

Jessica Moore

November 11, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Jessica Moore

Filed 05/02/22

Page 149 of 175

December 1, 2021

Jacqueline Schementi

November 10, 2021

Asia Adoibrahim

November 8, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

aa.bb. Melissa Estores

Filed 05/02/22

Page 150 of 175

November 9, 2021

November 4, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

ee.ff. Teresa Fernandez

Filed 05/02/22

Page 151 of 175

December 12, 2021

December 10, 2021

December 7, 2021

December 6, 2021

Curtis Samuel

December 6, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 152 of 175

December 6, 2021

December 5, 2021

December 6, 2021

Shelby Edwards

December 2,

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

nn.oo. Eshontel Davis

Filed 05/02/22

Page 153 of 175

December 4, 2021

November 29, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

pp.qq. Tyree Kelly

Filed 05/02/22

Page 154 of 175

November 29, 2021

November 28, 2021

Tiffany Abbe

November 24, 2021

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

ss.tt.

Document 37

Cody Brooks

Filed 05/02/22

Page 155 of 175

November 23, 2021

“On several sites it shows my company has received a loan through
prestamos cdfi but I have never actually received and funds. I have several
documents from start to current.”
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/money/fees/ppp-loansexploited-by-community-development-lender-prestamos-lining-pocketswith-1-2b/ (visited Dec. 14, 2021).
tt.uu. “I got approve for my PPP loan in the amount $16,250 By The **
Prestamos CDFI is trying to steal my money. Prestamos CDFI, said my
funds will be sent back to ***, but the *** said no funds are return to them
at all. I need my funds for my business.” (Oct. 12, 2021 post)
Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile
(bbb.org)
uu.vv. “My small business was approved by the sba in may in their records my
loan status is disbursed yet I havent received a dime and the lender
prestamos refuses to address the issue only referring me back to blueacorn
whos lying telling me that after review I wasnt approved by the sba so I
just want the money that i have been approved for.” (Sept. 23, 2021 post)
Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile
(bbb.org)
vv.ww. “Ive previously been approved for a ppp loan with Prestamos CDFI LLC
as my lender. This loan appears online on several sites as being disbursed
from Prestamos CDFI LLC to myself ********************* back in
May 2021 but the issue is that Ive never received these funds. When
reaching out to Prestamos CDFI LLC showing several documents and
screenshots as my valid proof the only response I received was the loan
through their technology partners organization Blueacorn I stated that
nothing on my loan documentation shows anything about a Blueacorn but
does show that Prestamos CDFI LLC is my lender. Ive recently taken out
a separate business loan in the amount of what my ppp loan was to cover
business things so I went ahead and applied for the Forgiveness and
Prestamos accepted it and sent it to the sba. Only way to apply for
forgiveness is by being approved and funds disbursed. I still havent
received any of those funds from Prestamos CDFI LLC and theyre lacking
important communication.” (Sept. 22, 2021 post)
Prestamos CDFI LLC | Complaints | Better Business Bureau® Profile
(bbb.org)
59

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 156 of 175

ww.xx. “I applied for my second PPP loan with XXXX. XXXX farmed this loan
request along with about XXXX other loans to Prestamos XXXX, XXXX.
After hurdles, jumping through hoops, I received SBA approval and was
provided loan documents that were signed and supposedly legally binding.
Those documents were provided by XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX by way of
Prestamos to sign. I was advised on XX/XX/XXXX by my bank XXXX,
that the funds in the amount of {$3200.00} were being returned to
Prestamos XXXX. I knew this was going to happen and attempted to
update my bank information prior to the money being returned but was
denied. Ultimately the money was returned. I immediately attempted to
reach out to both the lender and the third party XXXX. Prestamos
completely wiped their hands of the matter. Despite having contractually
entered into a loan with myself, and then, LYING TO THE
GOVERNMENT in having public record reflect the above, that I had the
loan funded and the funds were dispersed to me. The funds that were
supposed to be designated for me and reissued, as any lender would
clearly do, are MIA. I have documentation on top of documentation of this
whole ordeal to demonstrate that despite currently being legally bound to a
loan that has been accruing interest since XX/XX/XXXX, the lender has
not once reached out to myself or the SBA to correct the information.”
(July 30, 2021 consumer complaint excerpt).
Search the Consumer Complaint Database | Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (consumerfinance.gov)
205.228.

Further, although Prestamos states on its website that it maintains an office

in Santa Fe, New Mexico (see Prestamos CDFI, Prestamos Locations, available at Prestamos
Locations (https://www.prestamosloans.org)/locations/ (last visited Dec. 17, 2021May 1, 2022),
Plaintiffs were advised that office may not even exist.
206.229.

Plaintiffs are unaware whether Prestamos has retained or has spent or

disbursed any such funds for any other purpose. Plaintiffs have requested and anticipate
obtaining further information regarding the status of the SBA-approved but unfunded PPP loan
proceeds in discovery. Further and in any event, Plaintiffs are aware that Prestamos has belatedly
sought to fund certain class member borrowers following the filing of plaintiffs’ original
complaint on October 1, 2021, and these borrowers have still incurred lost opportunity and other
damages to their businesses due to Prestamos’s failure to timely fund their loans.
60

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 157 of 175

Class Action Allegations
207.230.

Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of the following

National Class and Subclasses (collectively, the “Classes”):
a.

208.231.

Excluded from the Classes are Prestamos, CPLC, any entities in which

Prestamos or CPLC has a controlling interest, Prestamos’ parent company (CPLC), Prestamos’s
and CPLC’sDefendants’ agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action is assigned, and
any member of such Judge’s staff and immediate family.
209.232.

There is a well-defined community of interest among members of the

Classes, and the disposition of their claims in a single action will benefit the parties and the
Court.
210.233.

The proposed Classes meet each applicable requirement of FED. R. CIV. P.

23.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

211.234.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 158 of 175

Numerosity: While the exact number of members of the Classes is

unknown at this time and can be determined by appropriate discovery, the Classes include
hundreds or thousands of members such that joinder of all members is impracticable.
212.235.

Ascertainability: Names and addresses of members of the Classes are

available from defendant Prestamos’s records and potentially other sources including publicly
available databases. Notice can be provided to the members of the Classes through direct
mailing, publication, or otherwise using techniques and a form of notice similar to those
customarily used in class action litigation.
213.236.

Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are based on the same facts and legal theories

as those of the other members of the Classes which Plaintiffs respectively seek to represent.
Plaintiffs and the members of the Classes all similarly applied for PPP loans, had their loans
approved by the SBA, but did not receive their PPP loan proceeds from Prestamos.
214.237.

Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of

the members of the Classes. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Classes as their
interests align with the interests of the members of the Classes, and Plaintiffs are represented by
counsel skilled and experienced in class actions, including financial consumer and other class
action litigation.
215.238.

Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available methods for

the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims asserted in this action because the expense and
burden of individual litigation makes it economically unfeasible for members of the Classes to
seek to redress their claims other than through a class action; if separate actions were brought by
individual members of the Classes, the resulting duplicity of lawsuits could lead to differing and

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 159 of 175

inconsistent adjudications; and, absent a class action, Prestamos is unlikely to be held
accountable for its failure to actually fund all applicable SBA-approved PPP loans.
216.239.

Predominance and Commonality: Common questions of law and fact

exist and predominate over any questions which affect individual members of the Classes.
Common questions of fact and law include, but are not limited to:
a.

whether defendant Prestamos failed to fund SBA-approved PPP loans to
Plaintiffs and other members of the Classes in breach of its obligations to
actually fund such loans;

whether Prestamos obtained fees for PPP loans that it did not make;

whether Prestamos upstreamed to CPLC PPP loan processing fees on the
PPP loans of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated unfunded putative
members of the proposed class;

c.d.

whether Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans violated the
Loan Documents it entered into with Plaintiffs and other members of the
Classes;

d.e.

whether Prestamos’s failure to fund PPP loans constituted unlawful,
deceptive and/or unfair acts or practices as to the members of the
California, Illinois and Ohio Subclasses; and

e.f.

whether defendant Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans
damaged members of the Classes.; and

whether defendant CPLC was unjustly enriched thereby.

217.240.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definition of the Classes if

discovery or further investigation reveals that the definition of the Classes should be amended.
COUNT ONE
Breach of Contract
(On Behalf of All Plaintiffs and the National Class)
63

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

218.241.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 160 of 175

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein.
242.

This Count is brought against both Defendants.

219.243.

The standard form promissory Note and accompanying Loan Documents

that defendant Prestamos and the members of the Classes entered into are binding, enforceable
agreements.
220.244.

Among other provisions, the Note identifies the specific PPP loan, SBA

loan number and amount of the loan; specifies that the parties to the Note are, respectively, the
Class member borrower and the “Lender” Prestamos; provides that, “[i]n return for the Loan,
Borrower promises to pay to the order of the Lender” the principal amount of the PPP loan plus
“interest on the unpaid principle balance, and all other amounts required by this Note” if not
forgiven; contains other PPP loan repayment terms and events of default and the lender’s rights
in the event of the borrower’s default; contains other provisions, including that “[a]ll individuals
and entities signing this Note are jointly and severally liable”; and, as to each Plaintiff and
member of the Classes, states that, “[b]y signing below, each individual or entity becomes
obligated under this Note as Borrower.”
221.245.

In addition, the Additional Agreement that accompanies the promissory

Note between the Plaintiff Class member borrowers and defendant Prestamos provides additional
terms and states, at the outset, explicitly as follows:
“In consideration of Prestamos CDFI, LLC, located at 1024 E. Buckeye
RD, Suite 270, Phoenix, AZ 85034, (hereinafter called ‘Lender’) making
the above loan, each of the undersigned, jointly and severally, do hereby
agree as follows ….”
222.246.

The Loan Document contracts entered into by Prestamos and the members

of the Plaintiff borrower Classes also include a “Notice - No Oral Agreements” document. That
64

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 161 of 175

document governs the “Loan by Lender, Prestamos CDFI, LLC to Borrower”; identifies each
Class member borrower and the SBA-approved amount of the loan; states that “THE
WRITTEN LOAN AGREEMENT REPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF
PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS, OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE
PARTIES”; states that the “‘Loan Agreement’ means one or more promises, promissory notes,
agreements, undertakings, security agreements, deeds of trust or other documents or
commitments, or any combination of those actions or documents, pursuant to which a financial
institution loans or delays repayment of or agrees to loan or delay repayment of money, goods, or
another thing of value or to otherwise extend credit or make a financial accommodation”; and is
executed by both Prestamos via its President Martinez, and each Class member borrower.
223.247.

A complete copy of one such Loan Document is attached to this Amended

Complaint as Exhibit A (with only Plaintiff’s Social Security and bank account number
redacted).
224.248.

Through its agreement to make PPP loans via the Loan Documents, its

acceptance and approval of Plaintiffs’ PPP loan applications, and as the counterparty to the Loan
Documents, defendant Prestamos entered into a binding agreement with each of the Plaintiffs
and the members of the proposed National Class to fund their respective PPP loans.
225.249.

Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class gave consideration that

was fair and reasonable, and have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required to
be performed under their Loan Documents with Defendantdefendant Prestamos.
226.250.

Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class kept their end of the

bargain by providing all documents and information requested by defendant Prestamos.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 162 of 175

Defendant Prestamos failed to complete its end of the bargain by failing to make the PPP loans
to Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class.
227.251.

Further, defendant Prestamos had an implied duty to act in good faith and

in accordance with fair dealing to take all steps necessary to fund the Plaintiffs’ and the other
National Class members’ PPP loans pursuant to the Loan Documents.
228.252.

Defendant Prestamos breached its obligations to fund Plaintiffs’ and other

Defendant Prestamos’s failure to properly fund the loans of Plaintiffs and

the other members of the National Class also breached its obligations under the Additional
Agreement that, “[i]n consideration of Prestamos … making the above loan, each of the
undersigned, jointly and severally, do hereby agree as follows: …”; the term in the Notice - No
Oral Agreements that the “Loan by Lender, Prestamos CDFI, LLC to Borrower … in the amount
of $ … REPRESENTS THE FINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND
MAY NOT BE CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE OF PRIOR, CONTEMPORANEOUS,
OR SUBSEQUENT ORAL AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES”; and the term in the Notice
- No Oral Agreements that the “‘Loan Agreement’ means one or more promises, promissory
notes, agreements, undertakings, security agreements, deeds of trust or other documents or
commitments, or any combination of those actions or documents, pursuant to which a financial
institution loans or delays repayment of or agrees to loan or delay repayment of money, goods, or
another thing of value or to otherwise extend credit or make a financial accommodation.”

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

230.254.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 163 of 175

By failing to fund the SBA-approved loans of Plaintiffs and the members

of the National Class, defendant Prestamos not only breached the terms of the Loan Documents
as alleged, but also failed to perform the central purpose of the parties’ agreement which was to
timely and properly fund these SBA-approved loans.
231.255.

Moreover, all PPP loan applications require applicants to certify that they

have not, and will not, receive other PPP loans as alleged more fully above.
232.256.

As a result, once Plaintiffs and the other members of the National Class

applied for PPP loans and their loan applications were approved by the SBA and assigned PPP
loan numbers pursuant to the Loan Documents, Plaintiffs and the National Class members were
no longer able to apply for PPP loans with other PPP lenders as they would not be able to certify
that they would not receive another PPP loan, also as alleged more fully above.
233.257.

Plaintiffs and the National Class members were therefore effectively

“stuck” with, and had to rely exclusively on, defendant Prestamos to actually provide them with
the PPP loan funds that they needed and that the SBA had already approved.
258.

For its part, defendant CPLC controlled and directed Prestamos’s PPP lending

activities and failure to fund the SBA-approved loans of Plaintiffs and the other members of the
National Class; controlled and dominated defendant Prestamos’s Board of Directors and senior
leadership; referred to the companies in their PPP lending activities as one and the same; caused
Prestamos to upstream to CPLC PPP loan processing fees including on PPP loans Prestamos was
obligated to fund but failed to fund; and served as Prestamos’s alter ego in failing to fund the
SBA-approved loans of Plaintiffs and the putative members of the National Class all as alleged
more fully above, and is therefore also liable for breach of contract.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

234.259.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 164 of 175

As a result, PrestamosDefendants harmed Plaintiffs and the members of

the National Class in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than the amount of the
wrongfully withheld PPP loan proceeds plus all other applicable damages to the full extent
permissible by law.
COUNT TWO
Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the California Subclass)
235.260.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein.
261.

This Count is brought against both Defendants.

236.262.

The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) defines unfair business

competition to include any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” act or practice. CAL. BUS. & PROF.
CODE § 17200.
237.263.

A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any

other law or regulation.
238.264.

Plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend have standing to bring this claim

because these Plaintiffs are residents of California and are subject to the protection of the UCL.
239.265.

Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved PPP loans breached the Loan

Documents and accompanying legal duties it owed plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the
other members of the California Subclass.
240.266.

As a result of its failure to fund the SBA-approved PPP loans, Prestamos

obtained fees and other compensation to which it was not entitled, including fees on loans it
never funded and loan proceeds rightfully belonging to plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 165 of 175

California Subclass, and wrongfully deprived plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the
members of the California Subclass of PPP loan proceeds.
267.

For its part, defendant CPLC controlled and directed Prestamos’s PPP lending

When the PPP loans of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the

California Subclass were approved by the SBA, these SBA-approved borrowers had a vested
interest in the PPP loan proceeds which Prestamos wrongfully withheld.
242.269.

Prestamos’s failures to fund these PPP loans thereby constitute a violation

under the “unlawful” prong of the UCL.
243.270.

Similarly, Prestamos’s failure to fund SBA-approved loans also

constitutes “unfair” acts and practices under the UCL because Prestamos’s acts and practices as
alleged offend public policy and are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and
substantially injurious to plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the members of the California
Subclass.
271.

Defendant CPLC’s role in directing Prestamos’s PPP lending also constitutes

“unfair” acts and practices under the UCL because CPLC controlled and directed Prestamos’s
acts and practices as alleged which also offends public policy and is and was immoral, unethical,
oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the
members of the California Subclass.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

244.272.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 166 of 175

Prestamos’s breaches of contract -- including not disbursing SBA-

approved loan funds and “locking” these borrowers into Prestamos -- constitute an unfair
practice because those breaches are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or
substantially injurious.
245.273.

Once the loan applications of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and other

Prestamos’s failure to fund PPP loans of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend

and the other members of the California Subclass constitute unlawful and unfair business acts or
practices within the meaning of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200.
275.

CPLC’s control and direction of Prestamos in failing PPP loans of plaintiffs

Marshall and Townsend and the other members of the California Subclass also constitutes
unlawful and unfair business acts or practices within the meaning of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE
§ 17200.
247.276.

As a result of Prestamos’sDefendants’ violations of the UCL, plaintiffs

Marshall and Townsend and the members of the California Subclass are, in the alternative and to
the extent that their breach of contract claim against defendant Prestamos fails to adequately
award their damages for Prestamos’s violations as alleged herein, entitled to equitable relief,
including specifically injunctive relief directing Prestamos to fund their SBA-approved loans in
full with applicable interest from the date the loans should have been funded, or restitution for
the amount of the wrongfully withheld PPP loan proceeds plus interest.
COUNT THREE

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 167 of 175

Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
815 ILCS 505/1, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Ahmadou and the Illinois Subclass)
248.277.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein.
278.

This Count is brought against defendant Prestamos.

249.279.

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the

“ICFA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or
employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the
concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the
concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact … in the conduct of any trade or
commerce … whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 815
ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/2.
250.280.

In the course of its business, Prestamos concealed and suppressed material

facts concerning funding the SBA-approved PPP loans of plaintiff Ahmadou and the members of
the Illinois Subclass. Among other things, Prestamos falsely communicated its promises to: (1)
act as a “Lender”; (2) hold Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass members to obligations “[i]n
consideration of Prestamos … making the … loan[s]” to which these SBA-approved borrowers
were entitled; (3) otherwise fulfill the terms of its written agreements with plaintiff Ahmadou
and the members of the Illinois Subclass.
251.281.

The ICFA also provides: “In construing this section consideration shall be

given to the interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to
Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/2.
252.282.

Prestamos is a “person” as that term is defined for the purposes of 815 ILL.

COMP. STAT. § 505/1(c).
71

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

253.283.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 168 of 175

Plaintiff Ahmadou has standing to bring this claim because he is a resident

of Illinois and subject to the protections of the ICFA.
254.284.

Plaintiff Ahmadou and members of the Illinois Subclass are “consumers”

as that term is defined for the purposes 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/1(e).
255.285.

Prestamos’s conduct, as described in this amended complaint, constitutes

“deceptive acts” in violation of the ICFA.
256.286.

Prestamos’s conduct, as described in this amended complaint, also

constitutes “unfair” acts in violation of the ICFA.
257.287.

Prestamos’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in

fact deceive plaintiff Ahmadou and members of the Illinois Subclass with respect to its intention
to fund their SBA-approved loans.
258.288.

The ICFA allows “[a]ny person who suffers actual damage as a result of a

Plaintiff and the members of the Illinois Subclass suffered ascertainable

loss and actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Prestamos’s concealment of and
failure to disclose material information about the funding of their PPP loans. Plaintiff and Illinois
Subclass members contracted with and thereby agreed to allow Prestamos to process and fund
their SBA loans and would not have done so if the true nature of those services had been
disclosed.
260.290.

Plaintiff Ahmadou and the Illinois Subclass seek monetary relief against

Prestamos in the amount of actual damages, as well as punitive damages to the extent Prestamos

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 169 of 175

acted with malice and/or was grossly negligent to the maximum extent permissible by law under
the ICFA.
261.291.

Prestamos’s unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the

public interest.
262.292.

Plaintiff Ahmadou and the Illinois Subclass also seek an order enjoining

each Prestamos’s unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and
proper relief available under 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. § 505/1, et seq.
COUNT FOUR
Violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
Ohio Rev. Code §1345.01, et seq.
(On behalf of Plaintiff Stalnaker and the Ohio Subclass)
263.293.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if

fully set forth herein.
294.

This Count is brought against defendant Prestamos.

264.295.

At all relevant times, plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio

Subclass were “persons” within the meaning of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4165.01(D).
265.296.

Plaintiff Stalnaker has standing to bring this claim because she is a

resident of Ohio and subject to the protections of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (the
“ODTPA”).
266.297.

At all relevant and material times as described herein, Prestamos was

engaged in “the course of [its] business” within the meaning of OHIO REV. CODE ANN.
§ 4165.02(A) with respect to the acts alleged herein.
267.298.

OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4165.02(A) provides that a “person engages in a

deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person’s business, vocation, or occupation, the
person does any of the following: ... (7) Represents that goods or services have sponsorship,
73

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 170 of 175

approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have …
(13) Advertises goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable public
demand.”
268.299.

Plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass have suffered

losses because of Prestamos’s employment of unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the course
of its business to the detriment of plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass and
their respective businesses. Prestamos promised to, among other things: (1) act as a “Lender”;
(2) perform its obligations to plaintiff Stalnaker and Ohio Subclass members including but not
limited to “[i]n consideration of Prestamos … making the … loan[s]” to which plaintiff Stalnaker
and the members of the Ohio Subclass were entitled; and (3) otherwise fulfill the terms of its
written agreements with plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass.
269.300.

Prestamos knew or should have known that those practices were deceptive

in violation of ODTPA, OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 4165.02(A).
270.301.

The facts that Prestamos concealed were material to the decisions of

plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass as to whether to select Prestamos to
fund their SBA-approved loans, in that they would not have proceeded with Prestamos but for
Prestamos’s misconduct.
271.302.

As a direct and proximate result of Prestamos’s misconduct alleged herein,

plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the Ohio Subclass were deceived into contracting with
Prestamos to process their SBA-approved loans and have been damaged thereby.
272.303.

Prestamos is therefore liable to plaintiff Stalnaker and the members of the

Ohio Subclass for the damages they sustained, plus statutory damages, penalties, injunctive
relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees to the maximum extent provided by the ODTPA.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 171 of 175

COUNT FIVE
Unjust Enrichment
(Against Defendant CPLC)
304.

Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.
305.

This Count is brought against defendant CPLC. Plaintiffs allege this Count only

Plaintiffs and Class members conferred a monetary benefit on defendant CPLC.

Defendant Prestamos received PPPLF advances and PPP loan processing fees

based, at least in part, on the unfunded loans of the Plaintiffs and Class members, all of which
was controlled and directed by CPLC as alleged more fully above.
308.

Defendant CPLC appreciated or had knowledge of the benefits it received as a

result of the Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ approved loans and it accepted and retained those
benefits, including without limitation hundreds of millions of dollars in PPP loan processing fees
CPLC caused Prestamos to upstream to CPLC from the SBA-approved PPP loans of Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated class members. Defendant CPLC profited from Plaintiffs’ and Class
members’ PPP loan transactions and used the funds resulting therefrom for business purposes
and for the personal gain of CPLC and CPLC’s insiders and potentially others, as alleged more
fully above.
75

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

309.

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 172 of 175

CPLC controlled and directed the activities of Prestamos for purposes of the PPP

also as alleged more fully above, and CPLC should have caused Prestamos to timely and
properly fund Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ PPP loans.
310.

Under the principles of equity and good conscience, defendant CPLC should not

CPLC did not require Prestamos to fund those loans and Prestamos did not, in

fact, fund those loans, and therefore did not provide full compensation for the benefit Plaintiffs
and Class members provided.
312.

As a direct and proximate result of CPLC’s conduct as alleged, Plaintiffs and

Class members have suffered and will suffer injury.
313.

Defendant CPLC should not be permitted to unjustly enrich itself at the expense

an order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure; naming plaintiffs as representatives of the proposed National Class; naming plaintiffs
Marshall and Townsend as representatives of the proposed California Subclass; naming plaintiff
76

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 173 of 175

Ahmadou as representative of the proposed Illinois Subclass; naming plaintiff Stalnaker as
representative of the proposed Ohio Subclass; and naming Plaintiffs’ attorneys as counsel for the
Classes and the Subclasses;
B.

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Classes on all applicable counts asserted

an award of compensatory, consequential and other damages to Plaintiffs and

herein;

members of the Classes in amounts to be determined at trial to the maximum extent permissible
by law, plus prejudgment interest;
D.

an order awarding all other forms of monetary relief to the maximum extent

an order of equitable relief, in the alternative and to the extent that the breach of

contract claim of plaintiffs Marshall and Townsend and the members of the California Subclass
fails to adequately award their damages for Prestamos’sDefendants’ violations, including
injunctive relief directing PrestamosDefendants to fund their SBA-approved loans in full with
interest, or restitution in the amount of the wrongfully withheld PPP loan proceeds plus interest
under CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200;
F.

an award of punitive damages based on Prestamos’ intentional, wanton and

malicious conduct, or its reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ and the National Class members’ rights,
in amounts to be determined at trial to the maximum extent permissible by law;

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Filed 05/02/22

Page 174 of 175

an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’ fees and

expenses and costs of this lawsuit, including but not limited to expert fees and costs, to the
maximum extent permissible by law;
H.

an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’ fees and

such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any
and all issues in this action so triable as of right.

Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG

Document 37

Dated: January 14, 2021May 2, 2022

Filed 05/02/22

Page 175 of 175

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.paed.589575.37.0.pdf
Size: 1,969,107 bytes
SHA-256: d71f48fb3510f56e96893ab99f657eeebed4db0572967d521d964c5b8abb6ebf
Our copy: gov.uscourts.paed.589575.37.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint — Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC (Dkt. 37, E.D. Pa. No. 5:21-cv-04337)

Record facts

Full text

File and source

Related records