Pro Se Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages — Tate v. Capital Plus et al. (D. Haw.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii · No. 1:25-cv-00349-LEK-KJM · Doc. 1 · 2025-08-14 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

an a iG! NA 1 Filed 08/14/25 Pagelof5 rege 1

f mn FILED IN THE

“3 ahi and IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )2!")° —
eae cugh —— 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII .
Shavod Best Ogme'). Com AUG 14 2025 4.

PLAINTIFFS: a ae
yr Jimmy Tate, at_@_ o'clock and_/$ min, fo"
i Lucy H. Carrillo, Cler

w* Jaleceya Tate et al.
vA Case NE 'yYP5 003 4g
LEK KJM

VS.

)
)
)
)
)
)
DEFENDANTS: )
Capital Plus Financial, LLC )
Prestamos CDFI, LLC )
Benworth Capital )
Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC )
McCoy Federal Credit Union (McCoy FCU) )
Fountainhead SBF LLC )
Central Pacific Bank )
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association )
Navy Federal Credit Union (Navy FCU) )
DOES 1-50 )
(Financial institutions to be identified in discovery) _ )

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs, acting pro se, bring this action against the above-named banks and financial
institutions for their roles in enabling and facilitating a massive, multi-state fraud scheme. These
Defendants, through willful blindness, gross negligence, and/or knowing participation, allowed
Calvin McCoy Jr. and his co-conspirators to obtain millions of dollars in fraudulent Paycheck
Protection Program (PPP) loans using Plaintiffs’ names, likenesses, and personal information,
without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent. The banks’ failure to implement adequate due
diligence, fraud detection, and identity verification measures directly enabled the theft of
Plaintiffs’ identities and the destruction of their financial and personal lives.

If. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question),
including claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
18 U.S.C. § 1962, and supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1367.

2. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (b)(3) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Honolulu
County, Hawaii, and Defendants purposefully directed their conduct at this forum.
Case 1:25-cv-00349-LEK-KJM Document1_ Filed 08/14/25 Page 2of5 PagelD.2

2

Il. PARTIES
A. Plaintiffs
Jimmy Tate and Jaleceya Tate, along with their four minor children.

B. Defendants

1.

Capital Plus Financial, LLC

2. Prestamos CDFI, LLC

3. Benworth Capital

4. Harvest Small Business Finance, LLC

5. McCoy Federal Credit Union (McCoy FCU)
6.
7
8
9.
1

Fountainhead SBF LLC

. Central Pacific Bank
. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

Navy Federal Credit Union (Navy FCU)

0. DOES 1-50: Other banks, lenders, and financial institutions whose identities are presently

unknown but who participated in, enabled, or facilitated the fraudulent PPP loan scheme
described herein.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

1.

Plaintiffs are victims of a sophisticated identity theft and fraud scheme orchestrated by
Calvin McCoy Jr. and his associates, who, without Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, used
Plaintiffs’ names, likenesses, Social Security numbers, and other personal information to
apply for and obtain millions of dollars in PPP loans.

The above-named banks and financial institutions, acting as PPP lenders and/or
facilitators, processed, approved, and disbursed these fraudulent loans, despite numerous
red flags and clear indicia of identity theft and fraud.

Defendants failed to implement or enforce adequate “Know Your Customer” (KYC),
anti-money laundering (AML), and fraud detection protocols, and in some cases, ignored
or deliberately bypassed warning signs that should have triggered enhanced due diligence
or rejection of the loan applications.

As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs’ credit, reputations, and financial
standing have been irreparably damaged. Plaintiffs have been subjected to IRS
investigations, legal liabilities, and public humiliation, and have suffered severe
emotional distress and economic loss.

Defendants’ actions were not isolated incidents, but part of a widespread pattern of
reckless or willful disregard for the rights and identities of innocent individuals, including
Plaintiffs, in their rush to profit from the PPP program.

Upon information and belief, Defendants received substantial fees and financial
incentives for processing PPP loans, creating a conflict of interest and a motive to ignore
or downplay fraud risks.

Plaintiffs did not authorize, consent to, or benefit from any of the fraudulent loans
obtained in their names, and have repeatedly notified relevant authorities of the fraud, to
no avail.

The full extent of Defendants’ participation and the identities of all responsible parties
will be revealed through discovery.
Case 1:25-cv-00349-LEK-KJM Document1 Filed 08/14/25 Page 3of5 PagelD.3
3

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1: NEGLIGENCE & GROSS NEGLIGENCE

e Federal Tort Principle: Negligence (failure to exercise reasonable care)

e Key Federal Case: Barnes v. United States, 137 F. App’x 184, 185 (9th Cir. 2005)
(federal common law negligence elements: duty, breach, causation, damages)

e Summary: Defendants owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in verifying PPP loan
applicants’ identities and preventing fraud. They breached this duty by failing to
implement adequate KYC/AML protocols, directly causing Plaintiffs’ injuries.

COUNT 2: AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD

e Federal Tort Principle: Aiding and abetting fraud (recognized under federal common
law)

e Key Federal Case: Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 761 n.7
(1984) (federal courts recognize aiding and abetting liability); Halberstam v. Welch, 705
F.2d 472, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (seminal case on aiding and abetting elements)

e Summary: Defendants knowingly or recklessly enabled the fraudulent scheme by
processing and disbursing PPP loans in Plaintiffs’ names despite clear evidence of fraud.

COUNT 3: RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
(RICO)

e Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (RICO)

e Key Federal Case: Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985) (elements of
civil RICO: conduct, enterprise, pattern, racketeering activity, injury)

e Summary: Defendants participated in a pattern of racketeering activity (including wire
fraud and bank fraud) by knowingly or recklessly facilitating fraudulent PPP loans, in
violation of RICO.

COUNT 4: INVASION OF PRIVACY & IDENTITY THEFT

e Federal Statute: 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act)

e Federal Tort Principle: Invasion of privacy (federal courts recognize privacy torts under
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652)

e Key Federal Case: Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 416 F.3d 418, 423 (1st Cir. 2005)
(federal recognition of privacy torts)

e Summary: Defendants enabled unauthorized use and exploitation of Plaintiffs’ personal
information, constituting identity theft and invasion of privacy.
Case 1:25-cv-00349-LEK-KJM Document1_ Filed 08/14/25 Page4of5 PagelD.4
4

COUNT 5: UNJUST ENRICHMENT

e@ Federal Common Law Principle: Unjust enrichment (recognized in federal courts as an
equitable remedy)

@ Key Federal Case: Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 111
(1991) (federal courts may grant equitable relief including unjust enrichment)

e Summary: Defendants were unjustly enriched by fees and incentives received for
processing fraudulent PPP loans in Plaintiffs’ names.

COUNT 6: CONSUMER PROTECTION VIOLATIONS

e Federal Statute: 15 U.S.C. § 45(a) (Federal Trade Commission Act, prohibiting unfair
or deceptive acts or practices); 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq. (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
requiring financial institutions to protect consumer information)

e Key Federal Case: FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., 799 F.3d 236, 244 (3d Cir. 2015)
(FTC Act applies to data security failures)

e Summary: Defendants violated federal consumer protection laws by failing to safeguard
Plaintiffs’ personal information and enabling fraudulent transactions.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

A. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

B. Award treble damages pursuant to the RICO statute;

C. Award punitive and exemplary damages sufficient to punish and deter Defendants;

D. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from further misuse of Plaintiffs’ personal data, and from processing or facilitating
fraudulent loans in Plaintiffs’ names;

E. Order Defendants to correct all records, notify all relevant agencies, and assist in restoring
Plaintiffs’ credit and reputations;

F, Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in pursuing this action;

G. Award prejudgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law;

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Case 1:25-cv-00349-LEK-KJM Document1_ Filed 08/14/25 Page5of5 PagelD.5
5

VII. VERIFICATION

We, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.

Jimmy Tate, Plaintiff

808-551-3474
Sharodtate07(@gmail.com

439 Pthiott Rd, McDonough, GA 30252

, ae Date: g- (Ye vo

raleod, Tate mitt
a owe OLD

/

File and source

File

complaint_hid_175180_doc1.pdf

Size

1,126,116 bytes

SHA-256

bf6104e32ee9506f54841b6e8eb10c11851bcf9a6001fd4d68430288f860c948

Our copy

complaint_hid_175180_doc1.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com