Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Vitolo v. Guzman

Case docket

Vitolo v. Guzman — U.S. District Court, E.D. Tenn., Knoxville Division

Vitolo v. Guzman — 26 court filings in the archive, mostly from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, filed between May 12, 2021 and August 6, 2021. Among them: 3 declarations, 3 motions and 3 responses or replies.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (16 filings); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (7 filings)
Filings26 public filings
Filed2021-05-12 – 2021-08-25
Document typesdeclarations (3), motions (3), responses or replies (3), orders (3), opinions (3), complaint (1)
Original PDFs26 of 26

Case summary

Jake's Bar and Grill, LLC and Antonio Vitolo filed a complaint on May 12, 2021 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, No. 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP, against Isabella Casillas Guzman, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration. The complaint concerns Section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act, under which Congress appropriated $28.6 billion to create the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and the statutory instruction that for the first 21 days the SBA prioritise awarding grants to certain applicants. The plaintiffs pleaded that the priority rule makes distinctions based on race and sex. The court denied a temporary restraining order on May 17 and 19, 2021 and denied an injunction pending appeal on May 20, 2021; the plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit the same day. On August 6, 2021 the government moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, the Fund having been exhausted.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiffs: Jake's Bar and Grill, LLC and Antonio Vitolo. Defendant: Isabella Casillas Guzman, Administrator of the Small Business Administration
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Knoxville Division, No. 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP, Judge Travis R. McDonough, Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin; appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)
ProgramRestaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF), created by Section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act and administered by the Small Business Administration
ClaimsEqual-protection challenge to the RRF's 21-day priority rule, pleaded on the ground that the government may not make distinctions between individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective
Disposition or statusTemporary restraining order denied by order of May 17, 2021 and memorandum opinion of May 19, 2021; injunction pending appeal denied May 20, 2021; notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit filed May 20, 2021; a second temporary restraining order for additional plaintiffs denied June 10, 2021; the government's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was filed August 6, 2021 and no ruling on it appears on this page
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What does the complaint allege?

That under Section 5003 of the American Rescue Plan Act Congress appropriated $28.6 billion to create the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, to be administered by the defendant, who runs the SBA, and that for the first 21 days beginning May 3, 2021 the defendant was obligated to prioritise awarding grants to certain applicants, so that Antonio Vitolo's application for Jake's Bar and Grill in Harriman, Roane County, Tennessee would not be processed until after those applications.

What did the district court decide?

It denied the temporary restraining order, by order of May 17, 2021 and memorandum opinion of May 19, 2021, and denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal on May 20, 2021, noting that a party must ordinarily move first in the district court for an injunction while an appeal is pending. On June 10, 2021 it denied a further temporary restraining order sought by additional plaintiffs.

What is the government's position on mootness?

That the amended complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Its August 6, 2021 memorandum states that the SBA stopped accepting RRF applications on May 24, 2021 because claims dwarfed the allocation, continued paying out awards until June 30, 2021, at which point the Fund became exhausted, and that the Fund is now closed.

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

Filings

26 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.

  1. ComplaintComplaint · PDF
  2. Declaration of Antonio VitoloDeclaration · PDF
  3. Memorandum in Support of TRO and PIMemorandum or brief · PDF
  4. Motion for Preliminary InjunctionMotion · PDF
  5. Motion for Temporary Restraining OrderMotion · PDF
  6. Supplemental Brief in Support of TRO and PIPDF
  7. Government's Opposition to Motion for TROResponse or reply · PDF
  8. Declaration of Dianna L. SeabornDeclaration · PDF
  9. Order Denying TROOrder · PDF
  10. Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending AppealMotion · PDF
  11. Memorandum Opinion Denying TROOpinion · PDF
  12. Notice of AppealNotice · PDF
  13. Order Denying Injunction Pending AppealOrder · PDF
  14. Plaintiffs’ Response Regarding Pending PI MotionPDF
  15. Defendant’s Opposition to PIPDF
  16. Reply Memorandum in Support of PIResponse or reply · PDF
  17. Memorandum Opinion Denying PIOpinion · PDF
  18. Sixth Circuit OpinionPDF
  19. Second Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)PDF
  20. Government's Response to Second Emergency Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Response or reply · PDF
  21. Declaration of John A. MillerDeclaration · PDF
  22. Order Directing Mootness BriefingOrder · PDF
  23. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO…PDF
  24. Memorandum Opinion Denying Additional Plaintiffs' TROOpinion · PDF
  25. Government Motion to Dismiss for Lack of JurisdictionPDF
  26. Stipulated DismissalStipulation · PDF

More documents from this docket

2 more documents from the same CourtListener docket (gov.uscourts.tned.99748) are in the archive but are not among the 26 filings above.

  1. Antonio Vitolo v. Case No 3 ComplaintComplaint
  2. Stipulation Purusant To Local Rule 12.1: GRILL, LLC, v. ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN,Stipulation

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

Back to top