Case docket
MAG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration — E.D. Pa., Civil Action No. 21-2213
MAG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration — 6 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed between May 14, 2021 and August 10, 2022.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
|---|---|
| Filings | 6 public filings |
| Filed | 2021-05-14 – 2022-08-10 |
| Document types | complaint (1), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 6 of 6 |
Case summary
Ten corporate plaintiffs led by MAG Enterprises, Inc. sued the United States Small Business Administration, Administrator Isabel Casillas Guzman and the United States on May 14, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 21-2213. The verified complaint sought an emergency temporary restraining order and further injunctive and declaratory relief, and challenged three things: the SBA's definition of "affiliated business" in its Restaurant Revitalization Fund Program Guide, the SBA's incorporation of 13 C.F.R. section 120.110 as eligibility criteria for the fund, and training slides and call center answers requiring an applicant to withdraw a pending Paycheck Protection Program application. The complaint pleads five counts under the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. The case settled; an order of August 10, 2022 records that the plaintiffs received all payments due to them under the settlement agreement.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiffs as captioned: MAG Enterprises, Inc.; MAG Pitt, LP; MAG Entertainment, LLC; Oasis on Essington, LLC; KWLT, LLC; KWON, LLC; BT California, LLC; Gold Club-SF, LLC; S.A.W. Entertainment, Ltd.; and Kimmico, Inc. Defendants: United States Small Business Administration; Isabel Casillas Guzman, in her official capacity as Administrator of the SBA; and the United States of America |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 21-2213 (5:21-cv-02213-EGS), Judge Edward G. Smith |
| Program | Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), described in the complaint as the support for restaurants provisions of Section 5003 of Title V of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, Pub. L. 117-2, codified at 15 U.S.C. section 9009c. The complaint also concerns the Paycheck Protection Program applications an RRF applicant was said to have to withdraw |
| Claims | Five counts: Count I, the regulation and the Program Guide violate the First Amendment; Count II, they violate the Fifth Amendment; Count III, the SBA's use of the term "prurient" violates the Administrative Procedure Act and is otherwise invalid; Count IV, the regulation violates the APA and is otherwise invalid; Count V, the Program Guide and the training slide violate the APA and are otherwise invalid |
| Disposition or status | Settled. The order of August 10, 2022 was entered after the court received confirmation that the plaintiffs had received all the payments due to them under the settlement agreement, and it cancelled the telephone conference set for August 11, 2022 |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What does the complaint allege?
That the SBA altered the definition of "affiliated business" Congress provided in the American Rescue Plan Act, incorporated its business loan eligibility rules into the Restaurant Revitalization Fund without delegated authority, and thereby exceeded its authority, discriminated against First Amendment-protected businesses and acted invalidly under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What relief did the plaintiffs seek?
An immediate emergency temporary restraining order and further injunctive relief restraining the defendants from applying the challenged definition, regulation and guidance to them, together with declaratory relief founded on Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. section 2201.
How did the case end?
By settlement. On August 10, 2022 the court, having received confirmation that the plaintiffs had received all the payments due to them under the settlement agreement, cancelled the remaining telephone conference. No opinion on the merits appears among the filings on this page.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
6 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
- Verified Complaint — MAG Enterprises v. SBAComplaint · PDF
- Court filing — MAG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 29, E.D. Pa.)Dkt. 29 · PDF
- Court filing — MAG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 35, E.D. Pa.)Dkt. 35 · PDF
- Order — MAG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 42, E.D. Pa.)Dkt. 42 · PDF
- Stipulation and — MAG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 43, E.D. Pa.)Dkt. 43 · PDF
- Order Confirming Settlement — MAG Enterprises v. SBAOrder · PDF
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.