Order — United States v. Jones (Dkt. 5, filed 2025-02-11)

Summary

An order of U.S. District Judge Debra M. Brown in United States v. Shakera Jones, No. 3:25-CV-28-DMB-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, dated and filed February 11, 2025 as Doc. 5. It recounts that on January 31, 2025 the United States sued Jones under the False Claims Act and for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment, alleging that she received PPP loan proceeds of $15,219.00, for which the SBA paid $2,500.00 in processing fees, and obtained forgiveness of the loan through false representations. The parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment on February 7, 2025, signed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney and by Jones pro se. Finding the proposed consent judgment reasonable and consistent with the litigation, the court grants the motion and will enter the judgment.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 3:25-cv-00028-DMB-RP Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/11/25 1 of 2 PageID #: 18




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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                                PLAINTIFF

V.                                                                      NO. 3:25-CV-28-DMB-RP

SHAKERA JONES
                                                                                      DEFENDANT


                                              ORDER

       On January 31, 2025, the United States of America filed a complaint against Shakera Jones

in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi seeking “to recover

treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (‘FCA’), … and to recover money

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

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

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

proceeds of $15,219.00 (for which the Small Business Administration [“SBA”] paid $2,500.00 in

processing fees to the financial institution involved) and that Jones, also based on false

representations, obtained forgiveness of the loan by the SBA. Id. at PageID 6.

       On February 7, 2025, a “Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment” was filed in which

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

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

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

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

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

       Case: 3:25-cv-00028-DMB-RP Doc #: 5 Filed: 02/11/25 2 of 2 PageID #: 19




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

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

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

$17,788.75 plus interest and a $405.00 filing fee—and concludes that it represents a fair and

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

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

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

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

judgment will be signed and entered by the Court.

       SO ORDERED, this 11th day of February, 2025.

                                                      /s/Debra M. Brown
                                                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE




                                                 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.msnd.50317.5.0.pdf

Size

129,290 bytes

SHA-256

5c5f17c0b346f1b6490cb9a8214b1da4ce1d42719e5a9c31d141006b3982d6d0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.msnd.50317.5.0.pdf

Original

archive.org