Spencer Robinson's reply in support of motion to dismiss -- Pietschner v. Kabbage

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division · No. 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ · Doc. 90 · 2025-05-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
SHERMAN DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
ex rel. PAUL PIETSCHNER, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
KATHRYN PETRALIA;  
ROBERT FROHWEIN; and 
SPENCER ROBINSON, 
Defendants. 
Civil Action No.: 4:21-CV-110-SDJ 
DEFENDANT SPENCER ROBINSON’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO 
DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION FOR IMPROPER VENUE, LACK 
OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 1 of 16 PageID #:  922

i 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... ii 
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................1 
I. 
THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE FALSITY, SCIENTER, AND 
MATERIALITY FOR ITS SBA/AML AND 3.b.(i)-(iii) CLAIMS ..............................1 
II. 
THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE FALSITY, SCIENTER, AND 
MATERIALITY FOR ITS 100K ERROR CLAIMS ....................................................5 
III. 
FOR THE 100K AND SALT ERRORS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT  
PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED THAT KABBAGE SUBMITTED FALSELY         
INFLATED LOAN AMOUNTS ...................................................................................8 
IV. 
THE EXTENSIVE BORROWER CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR LOAN 
FORGIVENESS, AND SBA’S FINAL VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, BROKE       
THE PROXIMATE CAUSATION CHAIN BETWEEN DEFENDANTS’       
CONDUCT AND KABBAGE’S LATER FORGIVENESS APPLICATIONS ...........11 
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................11
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 2 of 16 PageID #:  923

ii 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
Regulations 
 
Small Business Administration Interim Final Rule, 85 Fed. Reg. 20811  
(Apr. 15, 2020) .........................................................................................................................1, 2, 4 
 
Other Sources 
 
Paycheck Protection Program Loans Frequently Asked Questions, (Apr. 6, 2020), 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/Final%20PPP%20FAQs.pdf................................1 
 
Paycheck Protection Program Borrower Application Form (Mar. 30, 2020), 
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Paycheck-Protection-Program-Application-3-30-
2020-v3.pdf ......................................................................................................................................2 
 
See How We Calculate Your Potential Loan Amount, KABBAGE.COM (June 22, 2020, 7:31 
PM) [https://web.archive.org/web/20200618201819/https://www.kabbage.com/paycheck-
protection-program-loans/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery] ...................................9 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 3 of 16 PageID #:  924

1 
 
Defendant Spencer Robinson writes separately to rebut the details of the Government’s 
Opposition (Opp.) to his Motion to Dismiss (SR MTD). 
I 
THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE FALSITY, SCIENTER, AND 
MATERIALITY FOR ITS SBA/AML AND 3.b.(i)-(iii) CLAIMS. 
 
Citing controlling SBA guidance that lenders could rely on borrower representations,1 
Robinson argued that the Complaint’s descriptions of Kabbage’s loan review process 
demonstrated that Kabbage complied with 3.b.(i)-(iii). SR MTD (Dkt. 67) 11-13 (quoting Comp. 
¶90). In opposition, the Government responds that Robinson was somehow asking the Court to 
override the specific requirements of SBA’s April 15, 2020 Interim Final Rule (IFR). Opp. (Dkt. 
72) 51-52. Not so. The SBA guidance about relying on borrower certifications and not replicating 
borrower calculations is entirely consistent with, and informs, the regulatory language.  
There was no legal falsity because Kabbage met the requirements of 3.b.(i)-(iii). Neither 
the Government’s Complaint nor its Opposition denies that Kabbage complied with 3.b.(i) by 
“Confirm[ing] receipt of borrower certifications.” 85 Fed. Reg. 20811, 20815 (Apr. 15, 2020). 
Section (ii) required Kabbage to “Confirm receipt of information demonstrating that a borrower . 
. . paid salaries and payroll taxes on or around February 15, 2020.” Id. (emphasis added). The 
Government contends that Kabbage did not require “many” borrowers to “provide proof” that they 
were in business as of February 15, 2020 and asked manual reviewers just to confirm that 
borrowers had uploaded tax documents without independently reading them. Opp. 51 (citing 
Compl. ¶204). That argument is factually misleading. PPP loan eligibility was calculated based on 
average monthly payroll costs for the preceding year, or for a seasonal quarter in 2019. The PPP 
application form instructed: 
 
1 Paycheck Protection Program Loans Frequently Asked Questions, at Answer to No. 1 (Apr. 6, 
2020), https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/Final%20PPP%20FAQs.pdf.  
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 4 of 16 PageID #:  925

2 
 
For purposes of calculating “Average Monthly Payroll,” most Applicants will use 
the average monthly payroll for 2019, excluding costs over $100,000 on an 
annualized basis for each employee. For seasonal businesses, the Applicant may 
elect to instead use average monthly payroll for the time period between February 
15, 2019 and June 30, 2019, excluding costs over $100,000 on an annualized basis 
for each employee. For new businesses, average monthly payroll may be calculated 
using the time period from January 1, 2020 to February 29, 2020, excluding costs 
over $100,000 on an annualized basis for each employee.2 
 
Confirming that borrowers had uploaded requested documents was enough, because all those 
documents likely contained payroll information for periods before February 15, 2020. 
Far worse, the Government’s argument ignores that all successful borrowers certified under 
penalty of perjury: “The Applicant was in operation on February 15, 2020 and had employees for 
whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors, as reported on Form(s) 
1099-MISC.”3  In other words, SBA told Defendants in binding guidance that they could rely on 
borrower certifications; but the Department of Justice is telling them the opposite—arguing that 
Defendants had to demand documentary proof and manually review it. These contentions are 
literally frivolous. 
Section (iii) required Kabbage to “Confirm the dollar amount of average monthly payroll 
costs for the preceding calendar year by reviewing the payroll documentation submitted with the 
borrower’s application.” 85 Fed. Reg. at 20815 (emphasis added). Robinson’s MTD pointed out 
that Kabbage did just that. Paragraph 90 of the Complaint admits that Kabbage had an automated 
process to “review[] the payroll documentation submitted with the borrower’s application” — 
“Kabbage then used an automated program to scan the tax documents, extract data, and compare 
them against the borrowers’ entries. At times, Kabbage employees manually reviewed the 
 
2 
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Paycheck-Protection-Program-Application-3-30-
2020-v3.pdf.  
3   Id.; see SR MTD 12.  
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 5 of 16 PageID #:  926

3 
 
supporting documentation.” SR MTD 12-13. The Government’s Opposition did not address these 
allegations in its own Complaint. 
The Government’s Opposition relies on the 100k and SALT errors to support its legal 
falsity claims. Opp. 50. We will address those two very different “errors” in separate sections 
below. For 3.b.(iii) purposes, the Government’s arguments about the 100k error directly contradict 
SBA’s binding guidance that “lenders may rely on borrower representations, including with 
respect to amounts required to be excluded from payroll costs.” SR MTD 12. Payments to 
employees in excess of 100k a year were “amounts required to be excluded from payroll costs.” 
As Robinson argued, paragraphs 149-50 of the Complaint acknowledge that Kabbage relied on 
borrower representations that the borrowers did not have employees making more than 100k. Id. 
at 13.  When borrowers denied that they paid employees more than 100k and did not upload W-2s 
for such employees, there were no documents to review or confirm.  The Government’s contention 
that this process violated 3.b.(iii) is also frivolous. Again, the Government’s Opposition did not 
address paragraphs 149-50 in its own Complaint. 
With respect to the SALT error, which the Government failed to allege actually overstated 
eligible loan amounts, it is enough to state the obvious: the SALT error had nothing to do with 
BSA/AML, or 3.b.(iii), or Kabbage’s “review” of borrower applications. It was an innocent, 
uniform calculation error. SR MTD 21, citing Compl. ¶¶102, 114, 117 (employees with no tax 
background “misapprehended these tax documents” and mistakenly included SALT withholdings 
in loan calculations).  
Tellingly, the Government disclaims any obligation to plead what review processes would 
have been sufficient to meet 3.b.(iii). Opp. 53-54. The Government’s Opposition does not suggest 
that SBA ever defined what a good faith review meant, or that lenders could not rely on automated 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 6 of 16 PageID #:  927

4 
 
processes. In the absence of any clear guidance, the Government’s Opposition lists a hodgepodge 
of “examples” supposedly adding up to an overall failure to meet PPP “requirements,” whatever 
those were. Opp. 50-51.  
The Government then describes various issues related to verifying customer identity, 
including the elimination of Yodlee software to access customer banking activity, not reviewing 
driver’s licenses, and supposedly not running OFAC checks. Opp. 50-51. The Government cites 
no regulations or guidance requiring any of those things. Section 3.b.(iv) of the IFR required only 
that lenders “[f]ollow applicable BSA requirements,” and said that “such a program may include 
a customer identification program (CIP), which includes identifying and verifying their PPP 
borrowers’ identities (including e.g., date of birth, address, and taxpayer identification number)[.]” 
85 Fed. Reg. at 20815 (emphases added).  
Again, the Government’s Complaint admits that Kabbage had an automated CIP program 
that flagged issues for manual review: 
Kabbage also used a primarily automated process to “review” PPP loan 
applications to confirm the borrower’s eligibility and in an attempt to comply 
with KYB/KYC requirements, as required under PPP regulations. At a high 
level, Kabbage processed the information submitted by the borrower through 
several software programs designed to verify borrowers’ identities and business 
information and evaluate their documents for fraud concerns. If a borrower’s 
information was flagged in Kabbage’s automated process, the application was 
sent for manual review by a Kabbage employee or contractor, who then reviewed 
the submitted materials, requested additional documentation, and decided 
whether to decline or approve the application. (Compl. ¶94). 
 
 
At a “high level,” what’s wrong with that? DOJ lawyers may believe Kabbage could have 
done more. They allege no guidance actually requiring more, they allege no scienter evidence 
that Defendants received notice that SBA required more, and they allege no materiality evidence 
that SBA would not have paid out loans if it knew the details of Kabbage’s CIP program. The 
Government’s desire for more is not material because PPP loans did not implicate typical 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 7 of 16 PageID #:  928

5 
 
criminal anti-money-laundering program concerns. The “applicable,” material, BSA 
requirements involved CIP procedures—Kabbage indisputably had those.  
The Government’s list of grievances concludes with allegations that Kabbage did not hire 
enough manual reviewers (without an allegation that the short-staffing led Kabbage to skip manual 
reviews required in its process) and that “Robinson ignored recommendations to improve 
Kabbage’s automated review of documents solely based on cost.” Opp. 51. Jury bait does not 
create unwritten legal obligations to spend money on every suggestion for improvement. 
All this necessary detail rebuts the Government’s lengthy response to Robinson’s argument 
that the Government failed to allege legal falsity. Consistent with Robinson’s MTD, the Joint 
Reply correctly counters the Government’s materiality arguments by noting that SBA and 
Defendants were in the same boat—they knew that the program’s need for speed and reliance on 
borrower certifications would allow a substantial number of fraudulent applications to get through 
the system. Joint Reply 10-11. That’s why the Complaint fails to plead scienter and materiality 
with respect to certifications about BSA/AML or 3.b.(i)-(iii) compliance. SR MTD 14-16. 
II. 
THE GOVERNMENT FAILED TO ALLEGE FALSITY, SCIENTER, AND 
MATERIALITY FOR ITS 100K ERROR CLAIMS. 
 
Robinson argued that Kabbage’s process with respect to the 100k error complied with SBA 
guidance, and the Government thus had failed to allege falsity, scienter, and materiality. SR MTD 
11-16. The Government’s Opposition seems to suggest that regardless of whether Kabbage’s 
automated process complied with SBA guidance, Defendants were not doing a “good faith review” 
because they received notice that Kabbage’s process sometimes “‘failed to exclude compensation 
over $100,000,’ USG Compl. ¶¶ 157–183, and yet they chose not to remedy the errors. USG 
Compl. ¶¶ 142, 170.” Opp. 55. Robinson argued the Complaint’s allegations about a failure to take 
corrective action were hopelessly vague. SR MTD 15 & n.10, quoting Compl. ¶183 (“What actions 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 8 of 16 PageID #:  929

6 
 
were taken is unclear, but subsequent reviews of Kabbage’s loan data revealed numerous loans 
affected by the $100k Error, which Kabbage had not fixed.”). The Government’s Opposition cites 
Compl. ¶183 without mentioning its concession that “What actions were taken is unclear.” 
The Government’s Complaint and Opposition attempt to impose an unstated requirement 
that Kabbage should have disregarded borrower certifications, and failed “to implement logical or 
mathematical checks or caps” comparing the number of employees to the loan amount requested 
to catch 100k errors. Opp. 35. The Complaint’s examples of 100k errors allege that “Kabbage 
knew based only on the loan amount and stated number of employees that the borrower was likely 
not eligible for the loan in the amount” received. Compl. ¶¶315-18, 320.  
The Joint Reply has the right answer to those arguments: “To the extent a calculation 
comparing the number of employees to the requested loan amount would have indicated $100K 
errors, such a comparison was not required under the SBA’s rules or guidance, and could not have 
been material, because SBA received the same figures (i.e., payroll and headcount) and could have 
done the simple arithmetic itself.” Joint Reply 11.  
We write separately to address the Government’s additional materiality responses. The 
Government misleadingly asserts that the Complaint alleges “Government action” in response to 
the 100k error: “[the] Complaint alleges that when informed of Kabbage’s calculation errors, SBA 
stopped processing loans for forgiveness and guaranty purchase payment requests. USG Compl. 
¶¶ 143–144 (SALT Error); USG Compl. ¶ 184 ($100k Error).” Opp. 78. The Government’s 
Opposition also relies on a 2021 voluntary agreement between Kabbage and SBA (“2021 
Agreement”) to resolve the suspension of Kabbage’s forgiveness applications. Opp. 34-35. The 
Complaint explicitly relied on that 2021 Agreement. Compl. ¶¶145–146, 185.  
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 9 of 16 PageID #:  930

7 
 
Because the Government referenced the 2021 Agreement in its Complaint and relies on it 
to support its claims and materiality arguments, this Court may consider it. We have attached it as 
Exhibit 1. It actually tells a story of Government action on the SALT error, and a story of 
Government inaction on the 100k error. The 2021 Agreement said that Kabbage had provided 
SBA a list of 53,000 PPP loans that “may have been originated with excess loan amounts.” Ex. 1 
at 1. The 2021 Agreement explicitly defined “Excess Loan Amounts” as “involving duplication of 
state and local income taxes (‘SALT’).” Id. In other words, despite SBA being on notice about the 
alleged 100k error (Compl. ¶184), the 2021 Agreement did not address the 100k error at all.  
Consistent with Robinson’s arguments in Section III below, the 2021 Agreement said that 
Kabbage had hired Kroll to review its methodology for estimating health and retirement benefits 
in comparison to the SALT error amounts. Ex. 1 at 2 (Recital H). Kroll shared a report with SBA 
that concluded “with few immaterial exceptions, that health insurance and retirement costs are 
significantly greater that SALT across the Number of Employees, the Loan Size Amount, and the 
Borrower Types categories.” Id. at 3 (Recital L). Kroll reviewed Kabbage’s conclusion that only 
approximately 4,000 loans had SALT withholdings higher than estimated health and retirement 
benefits, and the difference totaled only $13.5 million. Id. at 3-4 (Recital M). Kroll found that 
Kabbage’s methodology was “not unreasonable.” Id. SBA accepted a $30 million “Voluntary 
Payment,” and agreed that the $30 million “constitutes full compensation to SBA for the Excess 
Loan Amounts related to the Affected PPP Loans and resolves all issues solely related to the 
Excess Loan Amounts.” Id. at 4. 
Critically, without ever mentioning the 100k error, SBA agreed to accept Kabbage’s 
forgiveness applications going forward. Ex. 1 at 5. Contrary to the Government’s materiality 
arguments, the Complaint’s allegations and the 2021 Agreement demonstrate that the 100k error 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 10 of 16 PageID #:  931

8 
 
was not material to SBA’s willingness to process Kabbage’s loan applications. The individual 
Defendants had left Kabbage more than a year earlier. The 2021 Agreement also demonstrates that 
SBA’s knowledge of the 100k errors, combined with the extensive borrower representations 
required for forgiveness applications, broke the chain of causation between Defendants’ alleged 
conduct a year earlier and SBA’s forgiveness payments. 
In a last resort, the Government claims that DOJ’s claims against Kabbage when it was in 
bankruptcy were “Government action” demonstrating materiality. Opp. 78-79. In other words, we 
have to prove materiality to sue you, and the fact that we’re suing your company for the same stuff 
demonstrates materiality. DOJ’s decisions to pursue this mistaken case four years later have 
nothing to do with what was material to SBA in 2020-21. This argument is entirely circular.  
The Government is also using the wrong falsity predicate to support materiality. SBA 
announced from the jump that borrowers were responsible for calculating their own loan amounts. 
The borrower’s falsity was the inflated loan amount. Kabbage’s alleged falsity was a review 
failure. The Government has not plausibly alleged that it stopped processing loan applications for 
Kabbage (or any other lender) based solely on the lender’s reliance on borrowers’ representations 
that they did not pay any employees more than 100k. The 2021 Agreement refutes that theory.  
III. 
FOR THE 100K AND SALT ERRORS, THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT 
PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED THAT KABBAGE SUBMITTED FALSELY INFLATED 
LOAN AMOUNTS. 
 
Robinson’s MTD demonstrated that the Kabbage application process at the heart of the 
Government’s Complaint actually understated loan amounts by failing to include allowable health 
and retirement benefits. Robinson argued that the Government therefore had failed to plead with 
particularity that the 100k and SALT errors led to knowingly false claims for overstated loan 
amounts. SR MTD 16-22. The 2021 Agreement provides further support that “with few immaterial 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 11 of 16 PageID #:  932

9 
exceptions, [] health insurance and retirement costs are significantly greater that SALT[.]” Ex. 1 
at 3 (Recital L).  
The Government’s Opposition did not dispute that Kabbage’s process understated loan 
amounts by failing to include health and retirement benefits. Instead, the Opposition made 
procedural attacks on Robinson’s reference to an archived Kabbage webpage informing PPP 
loan applicants that because Kabbage could not readily scan non-standard retirement and health 
benefit documentation, “we’re not currently including employee-paid group health benefits or 
retirement contributions in loan calculations.”4  
The Government contends that the archived webpage that was part of Kabbage’s web 
platform and described Kabbage’s loan application process to applicants was not “referred to in 
the Complaint” and was not “central” to the Government’s claims. Opp. 71. That’s strange, 
because elsewhere the Government’s Opposition said that it was suing Defendants because they 
“directed, designed, and implemented Kabbage’s PPP participation, including its faulty loan 
calculation methodology.” Opp. 46 (emphasis added). The Complaint described Kabbage’s web 
portal and automated application and review process at length. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶82-90. To be 
clear, the Government contends that it can cherry pick parts of that loan calculation methodology 
in pleading its claims and opposing a motion to dismiss, and simultaneously prohibit the Court 
from considering the entire loan calculation methodology. Of course the entire loan calculation is 
4 SR MTD 17 & n.14, citing See How We Calculate Your Potential Loan Amount, 
KABBAGE.COM 
(June 
22, 
2020, 
7:31 
PM) 
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200618201819/https://www.kabbage.com/paycheck-protection-
program-loans/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery]. The Government investigated 
Kabbage for more than three years. Its procedural attacks on what it knows to be true are beneath 
its obligation to seek justice. Its first procedural attack is that we failed to attach a copy of the 
physical webpage to our motion. Opp. 71. The Government does not claim it could not find the 
webpage on the internet. We apologize for that oversight and have attached it here as Exhibit 2. 
We ask the Court not to hold the failures of counsel against our client. 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 12 of 16 PageID #:  933

10 
 
“central” to the Government’s claims—either the full calculation created inflated loan amounts, or 
it did not. 
Finally, the Government argues that the Court should not take “judicial notice” of the 
archived webpage, because it is not “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to 
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Opp. 71 (citation omitted). There is no 
dispute about authenticity – as a simple browser search demonstrates this. We do not ask the Court 
to take judicial notice of hearsay statements of fact on the webpage for their truth. The Court need 
only notice that the webpage said what it said, and that it was part of Kabbage’s website and web 
portal. The Government explicitly relied on that website and web portal to support its claims. 
Robinson’s MTD referenced websites with statistics about SALT rates compared to health 
and retirement benefits solely to illustrate that the Court’s common sense “plausibility” analysis 
should require the Government to plead that the SALT and 100k errors actually created inflated 
claims. Even though we expressly said that the Court should not take judicial notice of those 
“damned statistics” (SR MTD 20 & n. 23), the Government’s Opposition said the Court should 
ignore the plausibility analysis. It claims that “Robinson’s . . . contention is fact intensive and 
would require examination on a loan-by-loan basis whether a borrower whose loan was impacted 
by the SALT and $100k Errors made eligible healthcare and retirement payments for employees 
and whether those payments, when taken into account in the loan amount, exceeded the inflation 
caused by the SALT and/or $100k Errors.” Opp. 71-72. Precisely. That is the calculation 
Defendants would have had to make in order to “know” that any individual loan application was 
inflated. And that is the calculation the Government must make to plead and prove its claims.   
 
 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 13 of 16 PageID #:  934

11 
 
IV. 
THE EXTENSIVE BORROWER CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR LOAN 
FORGIVENESS, AND SBA’S FINAL VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, BROKE THE 
PROXIMATE CAUSATION CHAIN BETWEEN DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT 
AND KABBAGE’S LATER FORGIVENESS APPLICATIONS. 
 
Defendants left Kabbage in October 2020. Robinson argued that the Complaint failed to 
allege proximate causation between Defendants’ alleged conduct and Kabbage’s later forgiveness 
applications. SR MTD 22-25. The Government’s Opposition responded that it was foreseeable that 
a borrower who had obtained an inflated PPP loan would apply for forgiveness using the same 
calculations. Opp. 88-90. That is too simple and preliminary. To obtain forgiveness, borrowers 
had to make extensive certifications and fill out a worksheet recalculating forgiveness loan 
amounts, with specific references to deducting employee compensation in excess of $100,000 
annually. SR MTD 23-24.  
Further, the Government alleges that Kabbage was on notice of the 100k and SALT errors 
after Defendants left. It was not reasonably foreseeable before October 2020 that Kabbage would 
process erroneous forgiveness applications after entering the 2021 Agreement. The borrower 
certifications and the 2021 Agreement broke any chain of proximate causation. 
CONCLUSION 
The Court should separately consider, and dismiss, the Government’s BSA/AML 3.b.(i)-
(iii) claims, the 100k error claims, and the SALT error claims, and dismiss the entire Complaint 
with prejudice.  
 
 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 14 of 16 PageID #:  935

12 
 
Dated: May 9, 2025  
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Henry W. Asbill 
Henry W. Asbill (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
Christopher B. Mead (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
Lisa H. Schertler (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
Paola Pinto (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears, LLP 
555 13th Street, N.W. | Suite 500 West  
Washington, DC 20004 
hasbill@schertlerlaw.com 
cmead@schertlerlaw.com 
lschertler@schertlerlaw.com  
ppinto@schertlerlaw.com  
Phone: (202) 628-4199 
Fax: (202) 628-4177 
 
Counsel for Defendant Spencer Robinson 
 
 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 15 of 16 PageID #:  936

13 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that on May 9, 2025, I caused the foregoing to be filed electronically with 
the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to 
counsel of record.  
 
Dated: May 9, 2025  
 
 
 
Respectfully Submitted,  
 
 
 
/s/ Henry W. Asbill 
Henry W. Asbill (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 
Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears, LLP 
555 13th Street, N.W. | Suite 500 West  
Washington, DC 20004 
hasbill@schertlerlaw.com 
Phone: (202) 628-4199 
Fax: (202) 628-4177 
 
Counsel for Defendant Spencer Robinson 
 
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ     Document 90     Filed 05/09/25     Page 16 of 16 PageID #:  937

File and source

File

90.pdf

Size

323,919 bytes

SHA-256

a46dea62581508400b8faf7a9f6a0a00b1f8e68f8e9ec14ff575c796466161a0

Our copy

90.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)