Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Sokol World Entertainment, Inc. v. Small Business Administration

Case docket

Sokol World Entertainment, Inc. v. Small Business Administration — D.D.C., No. 21-cv-2385 (TSC)

Sokol World Entertainment, Inc. v. Small Business Administration — D.D.C., No. 21-cv-2385 (TSC) — 6 documents in the archive, dated September 28, 2022 to March 20, 2025.

Case facts

CourtUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Docket numberNo. 1:21-cv-02385 — main docket
Filings6 public filings
Filed2022-09-28 – 2025-03-20
Original PDFs6 of 6
ProfilesIsabella Casillas Guzman

Case summary

Sokol World Entertainment, Inc., owner and operator of Club Cobra, a live entertainment venue in Los Angeles, sued the Small Business Administration and Administrator Isabella Casillas Guzman on September 9, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 21-cv-2385 (TSC), under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, after being denied a Shuttered Venue Operator Grant. On September 28, 2022 the court granted Sokol summary judgment, found the denial arbitrary and capricious and remanded to the SBA. The SBA again denied the application, Sokol filed a second amended complaint, and on March 20, 2025 the court denied Sokol's motion and granted the SBA's cross-motion for summary judgment, holding the decision was not arbitrary and capricious, was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiff: Sokol World Entertainment, Inc., owner and operator of Club Cobra, Los Angeles. Defendants: United States Small Business Administration and Isabella Casillas Guzman, its Administrator
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 21-cv-2385 (TSC) (1:21-cv-02385-TSC), Judge Tanya S. Chutkan
ProgramShuttered Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) program, created by sections 323(d)(1)(H) and 324 of the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Businesses, Nonprofits, and Venues Act, Pub. L. 116-260, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 9009a, with $15 billion set aside
ClaimsAdministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. and 706, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. The second amended complaint pleads Count I, arbitrary and capricious agency action, and Count II, agency action contrary to law, alleging that Sokol meets the Act's definition of live venue operator and that the SBA's decision conflicts with the evidence of eligibility submitted
Disposition or statusJudgment for the SBA. Summary judgment was first granted to Sokol on September 28, 2022 and the matter remanded to the SBA for supplementation of the administrative record regarding Sokol's competitors; after the SBA denied the application again, the court on March 20, 2025 denied Sokol's motion for summary judgment and granted the SBA's cross-motion
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What did the court decide in 2022?

It granted Sokol's motion for summary judgment, denied the SBA's cross-motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss without prejudice, granted both parties' motions to consider extra-record evidence, denied Sokol's motion to strike, and remanded the case to the SBA for supplementation of the administrative record as necessary regarding Sokol's competitors and further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

What did the court decide in 2025?

It denied Sokol's motion for summary judgment and granted the SBA's cross-motion, finding that the SBA's decision was not arbitrary and capricious, was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law, and that the SBA reasonably determined that sexually suggestive images and performances on Club Cobra's social media were evidence that Sokol was ineligible under the statute's exclusion of performances of a prurient sexual nature.

What amount was at stake?

The SBA's memorandum of July 15, 2024 in support of its cross-motion states that the plaintiff challenges the denial of its request for $486,761.85 in program funds as a live venue operator. The second amended complaint records that an eligible entity may receive an award equal to 45% of its 2019 gross earned revenue under 15 U.S.C. § 9009a(c).

Docket

6 documents in docket-entry order; attachments follow their entry. Gaps name the entries we do not have.

No. 1:21-cv-02385

  1. Memorandum Opinion Granting Summary Judgment for Plaintiff — Sokol v. SBAEntry 47
  2. Order Granting Summary Judgment for Plaintiff — Sokol v. SBAEntry 48
  3. —Entries 49–68 are not in the archive
  4. Second Amended Complaint — Sokol v. SBAEntry 69
  5. —Entries 70–76 are not in the archive
  6. —Entry 77: main document not in the archive
  7. SBA Memorandum in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment — Sokol v. SBAEntry 77, attachment 1
  8. —Entries 78–85 are not in the archive
  9. Final Memorandum Opinion Granting SBA Summary Judgment — Sokol v. SBAEntry 86
  10. undatedOrder Granting Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment — Sokol v. SBAEntry 87

Other cases in the archive from UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.

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

Back to top