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
| Court | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (9 filings); U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division (8 filings) |
|---|---|
| Filings | 18 public filings |
| Filed | 2021-02-05 – 2026-03-19 |
| Document types | orders (2), responses or replies (2), motion (1) |
| Original PDFs | 18 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
| Parties | Relator 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 docket | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, No. 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP); Kabbage is described as a lender and lender service provider that participated in the program |
| Claims | Count 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 status | Pending. 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 checked | 2026-09-23 · 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.
- Qui Tam Complaint (FCA)PDF
- Government complaint in intervention — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia et al. (Kabbage) (E.D. Tex.)PDF
- U.S. Complaint in InterventionPDF
- Defendants’ Joint Motion to DismissPDF
- Frohwein Motion to DismissPDF
- Petralia Motion to DismissPDF
- Robinson Motion to DismissPDF
- Motion (joint motion to stay discovery) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Motion · PDF
- United States' Omnibus Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss — Pietschner v. KabbagePDF
- United States' opposition to defendants' motion to stay discovery — Pietschner v. Kabbage (E.D. Tex.)
- Order (protective order) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Order · PDF
- Defendants' Joint Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss —…PDF
- Defendants’ Reply in Support of Stay of DiscoveryPDF
- Reply brief (Frohwein motion to dismiss) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Response or reply · PDF
- Reply brief (Petralia motion to dismiss) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)Response or reply · PDF
- Spencer Robinson's reply in support of motion to dismiss…
- Sur-reply brief (US omnibus) — United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia, Frohwein & Robinson (E.D. Tex.)PDF
- 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.
- (“Relator”) filed a Joint Stipulation of Partial Dismissal of Relator’s Complaint against DefendantOrder
- of the May 7, 2024, Settlement Agreement entered into by the United States of America, RelatorStipulation
- United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Kabbage — Order of Partial DismissalOrder
- to file its complaint within 90 days of this noticeNotice
- IT IS ORDERED thatOrder
- IT IS ORDERED that,Order
- United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Kabbage — Court Filing, Doc. 59
- Short Message ReportConversations: 1 Participants: 14 Total Messages: 182Date Range: 4/24/2020 - 4/25/2020Outline of ConversationsExhibit
- Report LimitationsExhibit
- Declaration of Robert Frohwein in Support of Motion to DismissExhibit
- This statement makes sense. Lots of lenders report wild inaccuracies in data dump. This is not aExhibit
- Before the Court are Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss the United States’ ComplaintOrder
- [Proposed] Agreed Confidentiality And Protective Order
- Joint Motion For Entry Of Protective Order, 502(D) Order, And Esi Order – Page 1Motion
- Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order
- Notice of Compliance Regarding Initial DisclosuresNotice
- Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice
- United States Ex Rel Pietschner v. Kabbage Inc. Et Al — Doc. 103
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.