Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Pietschner v. Kabbage

Case docket

Pietschner v. Kabbage, Inc. — U.S. District Court, E.D. Tex., Sherman Division

Pietschner v. Kabbage — 18 court filings in the archive, mostly from UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, filed between February 5, 2021 and March 19, 2026. Among them: 2 orders, 2 responses or replies and 1 motion.

Case facts

CourtUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (9 filings); U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division (8 filings)
Filings18 public filings
Filed2021-02-05 – 2026-03-19
Document typesorders (2), responses or replies (2), motion (1)
Original PDFs18 of 18

Case summary

Pietschner v. Kabbage, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-00110 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, began as a qui tam complaint filed February 5, 2021 by relator Paul Pietschner against Kabbage, Inc. and its executives Kathryn Petralia, Robert Frohwein and Spencer Robinson under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 et seq. The United States filed a complaint in intervention against the three individual defendants, seeking treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act and damages for unjust enrichment and payment by mistake over Paycheck Protection Program loans originated and facilitated by Kabbage. The defendants moved to dismiss on March 11, 2025, and on March 19, 2026 the court granted their joint motion to stay discovery pending resolution of those motions.

Case at a glance

PartiesRelator Paul Pietschner, on his own behalf and on behalf of the United States; plaintiff-intervenor the United States of America; defendants Kabbage, Inc., Kathryn Petralia, Robert Frohwein and Spencer Robinson. The United States' complaint in intervention is brought against Petralia, Frohwein and Robinson, described as former Kabbage executives
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, No. 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ
ProgramPaycheck Protection Program (PPP); Kabbage is described as a lender and lender service provider that participated in the program
ClaimsCount I, presenting false claims for payment, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A); Count II, making or using false records or statements, § 3729(a)(1)(B); Count III, conspiracy to defraud the government, § 3729(a)(3); Count IV, unjust enrichment; and payment by mistake
Disposition or statusPending. Four motions to dismiss were filed March 11, 2025 and briefed to a sur-reply of May 30, 2025; the court stayed discovery on March 19, 2026 pending their resolution
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What does the United States allege?

That under the direction and control of the defendants, Kabbage knowingly inflated the loan amounts of tens of thousands of PPP loans by systematically double-counting employees' state and local taxes and by including annual per-employee compensation above $100,000 in calculating borrowers' average monthly payroll, contrary to statute and SBA regulations. These are the complaint's allegations.

Why was discovery stayed?

The order of March 19, 2026 states that the court found good cause, noting that jurisdictional issues should be determined early and that the question of personal jurisdiction was before it, while also noting that a discovery stay is the exception rather than the rule.

What is the status?

The case is pending as of March 19, 2026; the charges are allegations.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.

Filings

18 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

  1. Qui Tam Complaint (FCA)PDF
  2. Government complaint in intervention — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia et al. (Kabbage) (E.D. Tex.)PDF
  3. U.S. Complaint in InterventionPDF
  4. Defendants’ Joint Motion to DismissPDF
  5. Frohwein Motion to DismissPDF
  6. Petralia Motion to DismissPDF
  7. Robinson Motion to DismissPDF
  8. Motion (joint motion to stay discovery) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Motion · PDF
  9. United States' Omnibus Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss — Pietschner v. KabbagePDF
  10. United States' opposition to defendants' motion to stay discovery — Pietschner v. Kabbage (E.D. Tex.)
  11. Order (protective order) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Order · PDF
  12. Defendants' Joint Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss —…PDF
  13. Defendants’ Reply in Support of Stay of DiscoveryPDF
  14. Reply brief (Frohwein motion to dismiss) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Response or reply · PDF
  15. Reply brief (Petralia motion to dismiss) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Response or reply · PDF
  16. Spencer Robinson's reply in support of motion to dismiss…
  17. Sur-reply brief (US omnibus) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)PDF
  18. Order Staying DiscoveryOrder · PDF

More documents from this docket

18 more documents from the same CourtListener docket (gov.uscourts.txed.204031) are in the archive but are not among the 18 filings above.

  1. (“Relator”) filed a Joint Stipulation of Partial Dismissal of Relator’s Complaint against DefendantOrder
  2. of the May 7, 2024, Settlement Agreement entered into by the United States of America, RelatorStipulation
  3. United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Kabbage — Order of Partial DismissalOrder
  4. to file its complaint within 90 days of this noticeNotice
  5. IT IS ORDERED thatOrder
  6. IT IS ORDERED that,Order
  7. United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Kabbage — Court Filing, Doc. 59
  8. Short Message ReportConversations: 1 Participants: 14 Total Messages: 182Date Range: 4/24/2020 - 4/25/2020Outline of ConversationsExhibit
  9. Report LimitationsExhibit
  10. Declaration of Robert Frohwein in Support of Motion to DismissExhibit
  11. This statement makes sense. Lots of lenders report wild inaccuracies in data dump. This is not aExhibit
  12. Before the Court are Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the United States’ ComplaintOrder
  13. [Proposed] Agreed Confidentiality And Protective Order
  14. Joint Motion For Entry Of Protective Order, 502(D) Order, And Esi Order – Page 1Motion
  15. Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order
  16. Notice of Compliance Regarding Initial DisclosuresNotice
  17. Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice
  18. United States Ex Rel Pietschner v. Kabbage Inc. Et Al — Doc. 103

Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.

Back to top