Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG Investments, Inc., et al.

Case docket

United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG Investments, Inc. — court filings

United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG Investments, Inc., et al. — 10 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed between September 10, 2020 and September 2, 2026. Among them: 2 orders and 1 judgment.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filings10 public filings (2 undated)
Filed2020-09-10 – 2026-09-02
Document typesorders (2), judgment (1)
Original PDFs10 of 10

Case summary

Relator Bryan Quesenberry filed this qui tam action on September 10, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. CV 20-08497-MWF (ASx). On May 30, 2024 the United States elected to intervene in part and to decline in part, and the case was unsealed. The summary judgment order of January 14, 2026 records that JMG Investments, Inc. received a Paycheck Protection Program loan from Bank of America and then, on May 22, 2020, the proceeds of a second Paycheck Protection Program loan of $501,588 from Fountainhead, that the defendants applied for forgiveness on both, and that the Bank of America loan was forgiven in February 2021. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment against JMG Investments, Inc. and Jeffrey Schwartz on all claims.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiff United States, ex rel. Bryan Quesenberry; defendants JMG Investments, Inc. and Jeffrey Schwartz. The United States intervened in part as to the allegations against JMG Investments, Inc. and Allstar Health Providers, Inc.
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. CV 20-08497-MWF (ASx), Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald
ProgramPaycheck Protection Program (PPP)
ClaimsQui tam claims under the False Claims Act, including a reverse False Claims Act claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G)
Disposition or statusSummary judgment granted for the United States on all claims and final judgment entered January 14, 2026: $501,588 in damages trebled to $1,550,986.38 under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1), $14,308 in civil penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 85.5, and costs
Status checked2026-09-23 · against the court docket and DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22

What did the court decide?

That the motion is granted and the government is entitled to its full measure of requested damages on the reverse False Claims Act claim, and it entered final judgment in favor of the United States ex rel. Bryan Quesenberry and against JMG Investments, Inc. and Jeffrey Schwartz on all claims under Rules 54 and 58.

How were the damages calculated?

The order states that the defendants received $501,588 for the principal of the Fountainhead loan, which the SBA forgave, along with $15,407.46 in processing fees reimbursed by the SBA to Fountainhead, equating to total damages of $516,995.46, trebled for a total of $1,550,986.38. The judgment states the award as $501,588 in damages trebled to a total of $1,550,986.38.

What does the record say about the second loan?

Schwartz emailed a broker working with Fountainhead on June 8, 2020 saying he was extremely surprised to have received the funds and that he might be forced to pay that loan back to the SBA, and testified at his deposition that he knew he was only supposed to get one Paycheck Protection Program loan.

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

Filings

10 public filings from this case, in filing-date order; undated filings are listed last.

  1. Qui Tam Complaint -- United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG…PDF
  2. Order on Intervention and Partial Unsealing -- Quesenberry v…Order · PDF
  3. Deposition of Jeffrey Schwartz — Quesenberry v. JMG Investments, Inc. (C.D. Cal.)PDF
  4. United States Motion for Summary Judgment -- Quesenberry v. JMG…PDF
  5. Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts -- Quesenberry v…PDF
  6. Judgment -- United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG…Judgment · PDF
  7. Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment -- Quesenberry v…Order · PDF
  8. Abstract of judgment issuedPDF
  9. undatedJOINT REPORT Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan ;… — United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG Investments, Inc., et al. (Dkt. 57)PDF
  10. undatedOPPOSITION to NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION… — United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. JMG Investments, Inc., et… (Dkt. 78)PDF

Other cases in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Back to top