Second Amended Complaint — Kevin Lofton v. United States of America (C.D. Cal. 2023)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR · No. 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS · Doc. 15 · 2023-02-06 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Summary of Pleading - 1 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Kevin Lofton 
868Victor Ave #14 
Inglewood, CA, 90302 
(310) 773-1296
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
KEVIN LOFTON, 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA 
Defendant(s) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
Case No. 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-ASx 
SECOND AMENDED 
COMPLAINT 
. 
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNDER 
THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT 
1. This is an action brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act,
(“FTCA”) and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States 
Constitution, 28 U.S.C. §1331, §1346(b), §1402(b), §2401(b), and §§2671-
2-6-2023
PG
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 1 of 26   Page ID
#:102
 
 
FILED 
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
 
 
 
 
 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY 

 
Summary of Pleading - 2 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2680, by Kevin Lofton against the Small Business Administration 
(SBA) for civil penalties for violating the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, 
for violating Title VI  42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., regarding retaliation 
and discrimination, for violating the Takings Clause of the US 
Constitution, U.S. Const. amend. V, and for the intentional infliction of 
emotional distress 18 U.S. Code § 2340, for knowingly and willfully 
trading private information and government documents related to 
Plaintiff Kevin Lofton without Plaintiffs permission or authorization for 
non-law enforcement purposes, for discriminating against Plaintiff in 
the application of a business loan, and for participating in an action to 
take funds belonging to Plaintiff in an effort to intimidate and inflict 
emotional distress. 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1346 
3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1346 and 28 U.S. Code 
§§§§§ 6226, 6228(a), 7426, 7428, and7429 
PARTIES 
4. Plaintiff Kevin Lofton is a protected class citizen and accountant 
by trade and the business owner of Skip 2 My Loop Publishing (and 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 2 of 26   Page ID
#:103

 
Summary of Pleading - 3 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
including Giant Comix), which had an insured business value of 
$1,000,000 per Biberk Business Insurance Policy N9PL592338 
5. Defendant is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 
6. Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Federal agencies may not 
disclose information without consent unless certain exceptions apply 
to the disclosure. The following are the twelve (12) Privacy Act 
Exemptions when consent to release information is not required: 
1) to those officers and employees of the agency which 
maintains the record who have a need for the record in the 
performance of their duties; 
2) required under section 552 of this title (FOIA disclosures); 
3) for a routine use as defined in subsection (a)(7) of this section 
and described under subsection (e)(4)(D) of this section 
(routine uses); 
4) to the Bureau of the Census for purposes of planning or 
carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant 
to the provisions of title 13; 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 3 of 26   Page ID
#:104

 
Summary of Pleading - 4 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
5) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance 
adequate written assurance that the record will be used 
solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the 
record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually 
identifiable; 
6) to the National Archives and Records Administration as a 
record which has sufficient historical or other value to 
warrant its continued preservation by the United States 
Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United 
States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether 
the record has such value; 
7) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any 
governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the 
United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity 
if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the 
agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the 
agency which maintains the record specifying the particular 
portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which 
the record is sought; 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 4 of 26   Page ID
#:105

 
Summary of Pleading - 5 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
8) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling 
circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual 
if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last 
known address of such individual; 
9) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter 
within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee 
thereof, any joint committee of Congress or subcommittee of 
any such joint committee; 
10) to the Comptroller General, or any of his authorized 
representatives, in the course of the performance of the 
duties of the Government Accountability Office; 
11) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction; or 
12) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section 
3711(e) of title 31. (5 U.S.C. § 552a) 
 
7. Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., was enacted as part of the 
landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It prohibits discrimination on the 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 5 of 26   Page ID
#:106

 
Summary of Pleading - 6 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities 
receiving federal financial assistance. 
8. U.S. Const. amend. IV states, in relevant parts, that “the right of 
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 
the persons or things to be seized.  
9. U.S. Const. amend. V creates a number of rights relevant to both 
criminal and civil legal proceedings.  In civil legal proceedings it 
requires that “due process of law” be part of any proceeding that denies 
a citizen “life, liberty or property” and requires the government to 
compensate citizens when it takes private property for public use.   
10. 18 U.S. Code § 2340 prohibits torture committed by public 
officials under color of law against persons within the public official's 
custody or control. Torture is defined to include acts specifically 
intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. 
11. 28 U.S.C. §1346(b), §1402(b), §2401(b), and §§2671-2680 provides 
a limited waiver of the United States’ immunity from suit, allowing 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 6 of 26   Page ID
#:107

 
Summary of Pleading - 7 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
claims “for damages for injury or loss of property, or personal injury or 
death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any 
employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office 
or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a 
private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the 
law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) 
CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRIVACY ACT 
12. Early in the morning on Thursday, March 26, 2020, the Senate 
passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the 
“CARES Act”).  On Friday, March 27, 2020, the House of 
Representatives also passed the CARES Act and President Trump 
quickly signed it into law the same day. 
13. Title I of the CARES Act was separately titled the Keep 
American Workers Paid and Employed Act. Perhaps the most impactful 
provision of the Act was the availability of Small Business Association 
(“SBA”) loans that may, under certain circumstances, have been 
converted into grants.  The goal of the Act was to provide capital to 
otherwise underfunded businesses, including non-profit organizations, 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 7 of 26   Page ID
#:108

 
Summary of Pleading - 8 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
in an attempt to help those businesses retain employees on payroll, 
covered by healthcare insurance, and off of unemployment. 
14. Economic Injury Disaster Loans (“EIDL”) provided loans of up to 
$2 million with interest rates capped at 3.75% for companies and 2.75% 
for nonprofit organizations, with payment of principal and interest 
deferred for up to 4 years. These loans were permitted to be used to pay 
for expenses that could have been met had the disaster not occurred, 
including payroll and other operating expenses.  
15. In addition, a business that received an EIDL [ during the 
covered period ] as a result of a coronavirus related disaster declaration 
was eligible to apply for a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) Loan or 
the business may have refinanced their EIDL into a PPP Loan.  
16. Section 1110 of the CARES Act also loosened credit standards for 
borrowers eligible to apply for PPP Loans.  For instance, the SBA may 
have approved PPP Loans based solely on the applicant’s credit score, 
without requiring submission of tax returns, or used alternative 
appropriate methods of determining ability to repay.  
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 8 of 26   Page ID
#:109

 
Summary of Pleading - 9 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
17.  To obtain a loan via COVID EIDL, small business owners must 
have met the eligibility requirements. Additionally, below were the credit 
score requirements: 
o $500,000 or under: 570 
o Greater than $500,000: 625 
Applicants were required to submit a signed and dated IRS Form 4506-T 
for COVID EIDL authorizing the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to 
release business tax transcripts for SBA to verify their revenue. 
18. As provided by Sec. 1102 (G) of the Cares Act, an eligible 
recipient applying for a covered loan shall make a good faith 
certification—  
(I.)  that the uncertainty of current economic conditions 
makes necessary the loan request to support the ongoing 
operations of the eligible recipient;  
(II.)  acknowledging that funds will be used to retain 
workers and maintain payroll or make mortgage payments, 
lease payments, and utility payments;  
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 9 of 26   Page ID
#:110

 
Summary of Pleading - 10 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
(III.)  that the eligible recipient does not have an application 
pending for a loan under this subsection for the same purpose 
and duplicative of amounts applied for or received under a 
covered loan; and  
(IV.)  during the [ covered period ], that the eligible recipient 
has not received amounts under this subsection for the same 
purpose and duplicative of amounts applied for or received 
under a covered loan. 
19. Beginning March 17, 2021, Isabella Guzman was the 
Administrator of the Small Business Administration  
20. On or about September 1, 2021, Plaintiff submitted SBA loan 
application # 3323639082 through the SBA Covid-19 EIDL portal for an 
SBA EIDL loan in the amount of $195,000. Plaintiff has operated his 
business since July 2014 and been a federally registered vendor through 
SAMS since August 13, 2015. Plaintiff has published novels through 
this business, registered a copyright through the US Copyright Office ( 
Registration Number TXu-1-952-138) and has developed intellectual 
property including the country’s first “comic book universe of all black 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 10 of 26   Page ID
#:111

 
Summary of Pleading - 11 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
female superheroes”. At the time of operation, Plaintiff’s business had 
less than 50 employees in addition to himself. 
21. On or about September 15, 2021 SBA staff including and with the 
participation of Administrator Guzman shared SBA loan application 
#3323639082 with unauthorized federal agents and agencies including 
US Treasury Office of Inspector General Special Agent-in-Charge Rod 
Ammari, Director of Field Operations Office of IRS Criminal 
Investigations Ryan Korner, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 
(“FDIC”) Office of the Inspector  General  Special Agent-in-Charge 
Jeffrey Pittano, (former) US Attorney for the Central District Tracy 
Wilkison, and unidentified staff members of the White House, not for a 
civil or criminal law enforcement purpose and not for any civil or 
criminal law enforcement investigative purpose, but for the purpose of 
identifying ways to harm Plaintiff’s economic interests. SBA staff and 
contacted parties knew and or should have known that there was no 
civil or criminal lawful basis to share Plaintiff’s loan application and 
that there had been no allegations of any criminal activity alleged 
against Plaintiff warranting criminal investigative review.  
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 11 of 26   Page ID
#:112

 
Summary of Pleading - 12 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
22. Plaintiff alleges that SBA staff at the direction of and with the 
knowledge of, Administrator Guzman, shared Plaintiff’s SBA loan 
application to unauthorized parties in violation of the Privacy Act, in 
order to give the illusion to necessary entities including Bank of 
America and the Franchise Tax Board, that parties were conducting a 
PPP criminal loan investigation, when in reality no such investigation 
was being performed or lawfully conducted. Furthermore, Plaintiff 
seeks to demonstrate and prove that the sharing of Plaintiff’s SBA loan 
application through emails, texts, and phone conversations, was done 
solely for the purpose of “freezing” Plaintiff’s loan application in order 
that the application not be processed to deny Plaintiff proper review 
and any allocation of a qualifiable EIDL.  
23. On July 5, 2022 Plaintiff received a communication entitled 
“EIDL Reconsideration Request SBA: 0011720007729” from SBA 
Disaster and Recovery Specialist “Angela P.”, Office of Capital Access, 
wherein the SBA admitted to sharing Plaintiff’s loan application with 
an unnamed individual in the White House. Although Plaintiff is an 
admirer and supporter of the President, Plaintiff never communicated 
to any member of the White House about SBA loan application 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 12 of 26   Page ID
#:113

 
Summary of Pleading - 13 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
#3323639082 and never authorized the SBA to communicate any 
information to the White House.  
24. On July 5, 2022 Plaintiff also learned through the same 
communication stated above, that SBA loan application #3323639082 
had been denied on March 28, 2022 and that further appeals would not 
be allowable as SBA funds had been finally exhausted on May 6, 2022.  
25. Plaintiff aims to demonstrate that SBA loan application 
#3323639082 was accessed numerous times by numerous individuals 
and unauthorized individuals between September 2021 and May 5 
2022, and SBA staff, at the direction of and with the knowledge of 
Administrator Guzman, frequently allowed access to SBA loan 
application #3323639082 wherein numerous notations and changes 
were made to the application without including proper or any 
attribution by any SBA staff member or officer in order to shield SBA 
staff from any liability or exposure relating to the unauthorized access. 
The manner in which SBA loan application #3323639082 was 
improperly shopped around to government agencies and the 
communications, both informal and formal, through texts, and emails, 
from SBA officers including Administrator Guzman had the ultimate 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 13 of 26   Page ID
#:114

 
Summary of Pleading - 14 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
and desired effect of denying SBA loan application #332639082 for 
$195,000 and denying the Plaintiff’s loan increase request to $495,000 
without proper review or proper attribution.  
CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE VI 
26. On or about April 6, 2021 Plaintiff began reporting to United 
States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) officials including First Assistant 
US Attorney for the Central District Stephanie Christensen, Assistant 
US Attorney Christina Shay and (former) US Attorney for the Central 
District Tracy Wilkison about significant false claims violations 
committed by Plaintiff’s former employer UCLA and retaliatory 
attempts made by UCLA staff, wherein UCLA staff had improper and 
corrupt communications with a UCLA alumni and current Employment 
Development Department (“EDD”) judge to create a public record 
undermining Plaintiff’s credibility by characterization of being a 
‘disgruntled employee’. As a result of the actions by UCLA and the EDD 
judge, Plaintiff was issued an EDD judgment denying Plaintiff’s right to 
EDD unemployment claims yet paradoxically Plaintiff was issued the 
contested benefits, immediately after and in violation of the EDD 
ruling. Although Plaintiff appealed the ruling and believed he was 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 14 of 26   Page ID
#:115

 
Summary of Pleading - 15 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
deserving of his unemployment benefits, Plaintiff realized he was being 
issued the benefits in contravention of the EDD ruling in order to deny 
Plaintiff standing in any suit and to protect EDD from future liability. 
Nevertheless, Plaintiff reported the misallocation of government 
resources immediately to both EDD and to the DOJ and informed DOJ 
that while Plaintiff had contested the decision to deny the benefits, 
Plaintiff had reason to believe the benefits were being issued to him in 
order to rob him of standing in any future litigation against EDD. 
Rather than investigate Plaintiff’s significant false claims allegations 
against UCLA which were clearly outlined in a document generated by 
Plaintiff entitled “UCLA violations”, and instead of investigating the 
nature of Plaintiff being awarded benefits that EDD judges had ruled 
against providing, DOJ instead began a months long campaign to warn 
UCLA and EDD about any possible liability or exposure from Plaintiff, 
and DOJ officials also began a months long campaign to use DOJ’s vast 
powers and influence to discover any information about Plaintiff that 
could be used against Plaintiff to prevent Plaintiff from pursuing claims 
against UCLA or EDD. 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 15 of 26   Page ID
#:116

 
Summary of Pleading - 16 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27. On or about April 12, 2021 and on or about May 5, 2021, Plaintiff 
applied for and received a First Draw PPP loan for $11,836 and a 
Second Draw PPP loan for $11,836, respectively, through third party 
PPP lender, Womply Fast Lane, for combined loan amount totaling 
$23,672. On or about June 15 2021 both the First Draw loan and 
Second Draw loan were totally forgiven. For several months, from April 
through September, DOJ and SBA had every opportunity to investigate 
Plaintiff and pursue any justifiable charges or allegations of unlawful 
activity against Plaintiff including for any possible indications that 
Plaintiff had made false representations or filed false documents to any 
state or federal agency. During this time DOJ and SBA through 
exhaustive investigation were able to fully vet and clear Plaintiff of any 
allegations of wrongdoing by Plaintiff and subsequently had 
opportunity to verify Plaintiff’s allegations against UCLA and EDD by 
launching an investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations. Though DOJ (and 
SBA) used their powers to investigate and verify Plaintiff, no 
investigations were launched into either UCLA or EDD despite 
Plaintiff’s very specific reporting of allegations of waste, fraud, and 
abuse. In short, DOJ (and affiliated federal agencies including SBA) 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 16 of 26   Page ID
#:117

 
Summary of Pleading - 17 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
were only concerned with using the powers of their agencies to discredit 
Plaintiff, and not to pursue credible and easily verifiable allegations of 
criminal conduct by UCLA officials and EDD officials.   
28. On or about September 15, 2021 at the direction of Administrator 
Guzman and SBA Office of the Inspector General Special Agent-in-
Charge Weston King, at the direction and suggestion of DOJ officials 
including Tracy WIlkison, SBA staff effectively put a review hold on 
SBA loan application #3323639082 in order that SBA loan application 
#3323639082 would not be processed in the same manner as other SBA 
loan applications and not be processed in accordance with the 
provisions of the congressionally approved CARES Act and SBA EIDL 
program. 
29. Starting in September 2021, the SBA began and continued an 
unrelenting campaign against Plaintiff whereby Plaintiff’s SBA loan 
application was withheld from proper review and proper determination. 
Furthermore, from September – March, Plaintiff’s loan application was 
frequently accessed by SBA staff and non SBA staff, including by staff 
of US Treasury Office of Inspector General Special Agent-in-Charge Rod 
Ammari, Director of Field Operations Office of IRS Criminal 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 17 of 26   Page ID
#:118

 
Summary of Pleading - 18 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Investigations Ryan Korner, FDIC Office of the Inspector  General  
Special Agent-in-Charge Jeffrey Pittano, and (former) US Attorney for 
the Central District Tracy Wilkison, in which SBA loan application 
#3323639082 was discussed through emails, texts and phone messages 
by the same parties, and in which  notations were frequently added 
without any attribution to the agents accessing the application or 
making changes to the application. Plaintiff regularly inquired of the 
SBA about the status of this application and received many false 
promises and assurances on the phone and in more than 50 emails from 
SBA Disaster Customer Service and SBA PDC Reconsideration, that 
the SBA would review and escalate the application to receive proper 
determination. Such false promises had the effect of not only denying 
Plaintiff proper consideration of his application, but also jeopardizing 
Plaintiff’s business relationships as Plaintiff’s faith and credibility were 
ruined by SBA’s deliberate mishandling and misleading tactics.  
30. On December 31, 2021, due to the continued lag in processing 
SBA loan application #3323639082, and due to the ongoing economic 
relief needed to facilitate Plaintiff’s affected business operations, 
Plaintiff applied for an EIDL targeted advance. Due to the fact Plaintiff 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 18 of 26   Page ID
#:119

 
Summary of Pleading - 19 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
is a minority and Plaintiff’s business is at least 51% minority owned, 
and due to the fact that Plaintiff’s business is in a qualifying 
economically disadvantaged area, Plaintiff qualified for and was 
granted an EIDL targeted advance grant for $10,000 and $5,000. 
31. Plaintiff alleges that the SBA was aware that Plaintiff was a 
citizen of protected class due to the review and application process for 
Plaintiff’s First Draw PPP loan, Second Draw PPP loan and the EIDL 
targeted advance. Furthermore, SBA staff including Administrator 
Guzman either knew or should have known that Plaintiff would be 
qualified for and approved for an EIDL given the due diligence and 
application review required to process Plaintiff’s First and Second Draw 
loan and EIDL targeted advance.   
32. Despite being evaluated for and having qualified for and having 
been approved for the First and Second Draw PPP loans, as well as the 
EIDL targeted advance, neither Administrator Guzman or any other 
SBA official made any effort to determine Plaintiff’s eligibility for SBA 
loan application #3323639082 during the 6-8 months the application 
was put on hold, precisely because Administrator Guzman knew that 
Plaintiff did qualify and should have been approved, and the SBA, 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 19 of 26   Page ID
#:120

 
Summary of Pleading - 20 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
FDIC, IRS DOJ and US Treasury were determined to not approve 
Plaintiff’s SBA loan application #3323639082 . Regarding eligibility the 
SBA did not attempt to verify Plaintiff’s credit score for loan eligibility, 
nor did the SBA seek to review IRS form 4506-T strictly for loan 
eligibility, rather the SBA sought Plaintiff’s tax history and tax 
information not pertaining to years pertinent to the loan application in 
an effort to find and leverage any outstanding taxes owed to the IRS 
against Plaintiff so as to cause emotional distress.  
33. Additionally, due to the procrastinated processing of SBA loan 
application #3323639082 and due to the ongoing financial pressures of 
distressed business operations, on December 31, 2021, Plaintiff 
submitted an increase request to the SBA, sent to 
covideidlincreaserequest@sba.gov for an increase to a new loan amount 
of $495,000. 
34. On June 5, 2022 Plaintiff was informed by the SBA that Plaintiff 
was no longer eligible for an SBA loan because funding had been 
exhausted in May 2022. Ultimately as a result of these tactics and false 
promises and improper handling of Plaintiff’s loan application, 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 20 of 26   Page ID
#:121

 
Summary of Pleading - 21 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff’s business fell into an economic spiral that was irreparable, 
causing the total loss of Plaintiff’s business, Skip 2 My Loop Publishing.   
CLAIM FOR VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AND THE TAKINGS 
CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT 
35. On or about October 15, 2022, SBA Office of the Inspector 
General Special Agent-in-Charge Weston King participated in 
discussions with various federal agents and agencies including US 
Treasury Office of Inspector General Special Agent-in-Charge Rod 
Ammari, Director of Field Operations Office of IRS Criminal 
Investigations Ryan Korner, FDIC Office of the Inspector  General  
Special Agent-in-Charge Jeffrey Pittano, and ( former ) US Attorney for 
the Central District Tracy Wilkison to extend retaliatory efforts against 
Plaintiff to include targeting Plaintiff’s personal banking account and 
banking relationships by contacting Plaintiff’s banker, Bank of 
America, in the guise of conducting a PPP loan investigation.  
36. On October 28, 2021, at the direction of Special Agent-in-Charge 
King and various federal agencies, including in emails, texts, and phone 
calls between US Treasury Office of Inspector General Special Agent-in-
Charge Rod Ammari, Director of Field Operations Office of IRS 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 21 of 26   Page ID
#:122

 
Summary of Pleading - 22 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Criminal Investigations Ryan Korner, FDIC Office of the Inspector  
General  Special Agent-in-Charge Jeffrey Pittano, and ( former ) US 
Attorney for the Central District Tracy Wilkison, Bank of America acted 
to zero out Plaintiff’s personal bank account and business account of all 
funds, including disaster relief funds allocated by order of the governor 
of California, and funds designated to pay Plaintiff’s business expenses 
and business insurance, and Plaintiff’s living and rent expenses, and 
thereby remit those funds on instruction from agents including Special 
Agent-in-Charge King to a third-party entity affiliate of the federal 
government. Plaintiff’s funds were remitted under the guise of tax 
collection, not reclaiming either the First or Second Draw loans which 
had been totally forgiven and Plaintiff was not given any notice that the 
government or any federal agency intended to take such action although 
by law, Plaintiff was entitled to notification about tax disputes as well 
as the opportunity to pay installment plans and or make any other 
necessary arrangements to appeal or settle such claims in a timely 
manner, in good faith, and on structured terms that would have not 
been harmful to the Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s ultimate ability to pay any 
and all outstanding taxes.  Parties’ participation in the absconding of 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 22 of 26   Page ID
#:123

 
Summary of Pleading - 23 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff’s personal and business funds robbed Plaintiff of the ability to 
pay needed expenses including rent, utilities and business insurance 
and was done solely for the purpose of devastating Plaintiff financially. 
CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL 
DISTRESS 
37. On February 17, 2022 SBA Office of the Inspector General 
Special Agent-in-Charge Weston King personally received a request 
from Plaintiff to review misconduct of SBA staff regarding the 
discriminatory targeting and unlawfully sharing of SBA loan 
application #3323639082 as well as address and take corrective actions 
regarding the absconding of Plaintiff’s banking funds.  
38. On or about February 17, 2021, Special Agent-in-Charge King 
directed and or gave SBA staff including Administrator Guzman 
permission to continue SBA staff misconduct and indicated that the 
SBA Inspector General’s office would neither take corrective action with 
respect to SBA misconduct nor investigate or prosecute SBA staff for 
misconduct related to SBA loan application #3323639082. 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 23 of 26   Page ID
#:124

 
Summary of Pleading - 24 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
39. Pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(b), 
§1402(b), §2401(b), and §§2671-2680, Plaintiff filed standard form 95 on 
July 31, 2022 through certified mail. 
40. Since on or about February 17, 2022 the SBA Office of the 
General Counsel has been read into and had knowledge of Plaintiff’s 
claims and allegations and has since that time investigated and had 
ample opportunity to investigate all allegations fully and performed all 
due diligence to make proper lawful determinations for the SBA with 
respect to Plaintiff’s claims. Furthermore, the SBA Office of the General 
Counsel has long since determined and decided since on or about 
February 17 2022 that no further investigation or determination need 
be taken or performed or would be taken or performed by the SBA in 
preparation of Plaintiff’s expected filing of claims. Subsequently, 
Standard form 95 was received by the SBA on or about August 22, 2022 
and was denied on or about August 23, 2022. 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 24 of 26   Page ID
#:125

 
Summary of Pleading - 25 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 
 
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kevin Lofton prays that this Court issue a 
decision and order: 
1.) Assessing a civil penalty of $1,000,000 for loss of 
Plaintiff’s going concern Skip 2 My Loop Publishing Inc,, 
plus $195,000 for the taking and impairment of SBA loan 
application #3323639082 (not including loan increase 
request amount of $495,00), plus $195,000 for actual 
damages relating to violation of the Privacy Act (not 
including loan increase request amount of $495,000), plus 
$2,500 for actual damages related to the taking of 
personal funds from Plaintiff’s personal bank account and 
business bank account, and plus $102,500 for the 
intentional infliction of emotional distress for a total sum 
of damages of $1,495,000. 
2.) Granting Plaintiff such further relief as the Court deems 
just and proper. 
 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 25 of 26   Page ID
#:126

 
Summary of Pleading - 26 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Dated: October 6, 2022 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully 
submitted,   
 
 
 
 
 
By, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
[s] Kevin Lofton   
Kevin Lofton, Pro Se 
868 Victor Ave #14 
Inglewood, CA, 90302 
(310) 773-1296  
 
 Acting Pro Per 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:22-cv-07334-SPG-AS     Document 15     Filed 02/06/23     Page 26 of 26   Page ID
#:127

File and source

File

CASE_CACD_2-22-cv-07334_Lofton-v-SBA_doc15_SECOND-AMENDED-COMPLAINT_2023-02-06.pdf

Size

247,789 bytes

SHA-256

bca2e22d03d5bd357f30bf7707730448d8d567a071b546fdb6218ad28e1358c7

Our copy

CASE_CACD_2-22-cv-07334_Lofton-v-SBA_doc15_SECOND-AMENDED-COMPLAINT_2023-02-06.pdf

Original

No public link identified.