Case docket
Natasha Collins v. Small Business Administration (SBA) Restaurant Revitalization Fund — E.D. Pa., No. 22-4104
Natasha Collins v. Small Business Administration (Restaurant Revitalization Fund) — 2 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed January 10, 2024.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
|---|---|
| Filings | 2 public filings |
| Filed | 2024-01-10 |
| Document types | opinion (1), order (1) |
Case summary
Natasha Collins brought this proceeding pro se against the United States Small Business Administration in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 22-4104, on the ground that the SBA improperly denied her application for an award from the Restaurant Revitalization Fund for her business Homestyle Bakery. The court received her opening letter on October 12, 2022, dismissed it without prejudice as insufficient and granted leave to amend; the amended complaint, filed February 8, 2023, asserts one claim and puts the grant she sought at $550,430.04. On January 10, 2024 the court granted the government's motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that the action is moot and that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the fund no longer has any money.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiff: Natasha Collins, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, applicant for her business Homestyle Bakery. Defendant as captioned: Small Business Administration (SBA) Restaurant Revitalization Fund; the memorandum treats the defendant as the United States Small Business Administration and refers to the movant as the Government |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 22-4104 (2:22-cv-04104-JP), Judge John R. Padova; the case was initially assigned to Judge Gerald A. McHugh |
| Program | Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), 15 U.S.C. section 9009c, which the memorandum records Congress funded in the amount of $28,600,000,000 and whose covered period ran from February 15, 2020 to March 11, 2023 |
| Claims | One claim against the SBA: that the plaintiff was injured because she did not receive the RRF grant she sought for Homestyle Bakery in the amount of $550,430.04, the opening letter adding that the denial was wrongful, discriminatory and in violation of her constitutional rights |
| Disposition or status | Dismissed. The government's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) was granted on January 10, 2024, no response having been filed, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice; the clerk was directed to close the case |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What did the court decide?
That it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the action is moot. On the evidence of a declaration by the SBA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Capital Access, the court found the SBA no longer has funds from the RRF with which it could satisfy a judgment, and it did not reach the government's other arguments.
What does the amended complaint allege?
That the COVID-19 pandemic had a devastating impact on the plaintiff's business Homestyle Bakery and that she was injured by not receiving the RRF grant she sought, in the amount of $550,430.04. The earlier letter treated as the original complaint asked the court to grant her the money for which she had applied.
What does the page say about the fund itself?
The memorandum records that RRF grants could equal a business's pandemic-related revenue loss up to $10 million per business and no more than $5 million per physical location, that Congress funded the program with $28,600,000,000, and that the covered period ended March 11, 2023.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
2 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.