Case docket
Tate v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC — U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii
Tate et al. v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC et al. — 3 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, filed between August 14, 2025 and October 17, 2025. Among them: 1 minute entry and 1 order.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii |
|---|---|
| Filings | 3 public filings |
| Filed | 2025-08-14 – 2025-10-17 |
| Document types | minute entry (1), order (1) |
| Original PDFs | 3 of 3 |
Case summary
Jimmy Tate and Jaleceya Tate, appearing pro se, filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages on August 14, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, CIV. NO. 25-00349 LEK-KJM, naming nine lenders and financial institutions as defendants together with Does 1-50. The orders on this page state that the complaint alleges the plaintiffs are the victims of an identity theft and fraud scheme, that individuals not named as defendants used their personal information to apply for and obtain Paycheck Protection Program loans, and that the named defendants processed, approved and disbursed those loans. The complaint asserts a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). On October 17, 2025 the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice for improper venue.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiffs Jimmy Tate and Jaleceya Tate, pro se; defendants Capital Plus Financial, LLC, Prestamos CDFI, LLC, Benworth Capital, Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC, McCoy Federal Credit Union, Fountainhead SBF LLC, Central Pacific Bank, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Navy Federal Credit Union, and Does 1-50, financial institutions to be identified in discovery |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, CIV. NO. 25-00349 LEK-KJM, before Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi. Complaint Doc. 1; minute order Doc. 8; order of dismissal Doc. 10 |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program. The orders state that the loans at issue are PPP loans and that the defendants are alleged to have acted as PPP lenders or facilitators |
| Claims | A claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), which the October 2025 order locates at page 3 of the complaint. The relief sought is injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and any other appropriate relief |
| Disposition or status | Dismissed without prejudice on October 17, 2025 for improper venue; the ex parte motion to waive filing fees was denied as moot and the Clerk's Office was directed to close the case on November 3, 2025 |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What does the complaint allege?
As quoted in the orders, that the plaintiffs are the victims of a sophisticated identity theft and fraud scheme in which several individuals, not named as defendants, used their names, likenesses, Social Security numbers and other personal information to apply for and obtain millions of dollars in PPP loans, and that the defendant banks and financial institutions processed, approved and disbursed those loans despite red flags. These are the complaint's allegations.
Why was the case dismissed?
For improper venue. The October 17, 2025 order states that the plaintiffs do not allege that any defendant resides in Hawaii, that no substantial part of the events is alleged to have occurred there, and that they fail to establish venue under RICO's special venue provision because they do not allege that defendants reside, transact their affairs or have agents in Hawaii. The order states that the complaint does not provide sufficient factual allegations to determine which district would be a proper venue, so dismissal rather than transfer was appropriate.
What can be read of the complaint itself?
Only its page stamps. The complaint's filing page extracts as five lines recording Document 1, filed 08/14/25, pages 1 to 5, so every statement of its contents above rests on the court's own description of it in the September and October orders.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
3 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.