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 — U.S. District Court, E.D. Tenn., Knoxville Division — 26 documents in the archive, dated May 12, 2021 to August 25, 2021.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (16 filings); UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (7 filings)
Docket numberNo. 3:21-cv-00176 — main docket · CourtListener docket 99748
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
ProfilesIsabella Casillas Guzman

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.

Docket

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

No. 3:21-cv-00176

  1. Complaint — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 1
  2. —Entries 2–10 are not in the archive
  3. Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 11
  4. Motion for Temporary Restraining Order — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 12
  5. Memorandum in Support of TRO and PI — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 12, attachment 2
  6. Declaration of Antonio Vitolo — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 12, attachment 3
  7. —Entries 13–14 are not in the archive
  8. Supplemental Brief in Support of TRO and PI — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 15
  9. —Entries 16–17 are not in the archive
  10. Government's Opposition to Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 18
  11. Declaration of Dianna L. Seaborn — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 18, attachment 1
  12. —Entry 19 is not in the archive
  13. Order Denying TRO — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 20
  14. —Entries 21–22 are not in the archive
  15. Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 23
  16. Memorandum Opinion Denying TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 24
  17. Notice of Appeal — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 25
  18. —Entry 26 is not in the archive
  19. Order Denying Injunction Pending Appeal — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 27
  20. Plaintiffs’ Response Regarding Pending PI Motion — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 28
  21. —Entry 29 is not in the archive
  22. Defendant’s Opposition to PI — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 30
  23. —Entry 31: main document not in the archive
  24. Reply Memorandum in Support of PI — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 31, attachment 1
  25. Memorandum Opinion Denying PI — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 32
  26. —Entries 33–36 are not in the archive
  27. Sixth Circuit Opinion — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 37
  28. —Entry 38 is not in the archive
  29. Second Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 39
  30. —Entry 40 is not in the archive
  31. Government's Response to Second Emergency Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 41
  32. Declaration of John A. Miller — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 41, attachment 1
  33. Order Directing Mootness Briefing — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 42
  34. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Second Emergency Motion for TRO — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 43
  35. Memorandum Opinion Denying Additional Plaintiffs' TRO — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 44
  36. —Entries 45–48 are not in the archive
  37. —Entry 49: main document not in the archive
  38. Government Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction — Vitolo v. Guzman (E.D. Tenn.)Entry 49, attachment 1
  39. Stipulated Dismissal — Vitolo v. GuzmanEntry 50

More documents from this case’s dockets

2 more documents linked to this case’s dockets are in the archive and not in the docket above.

  1. Antonio Vitolo v. Case No 3 ComplaintComplaintFed. R. Civ. P. 7.1 disclosure by plaintiff Jake's Bar and Grill, LLC, Jake's Bar and Grill, LLC v. Guzman, No. 3:21cv176 (E.D. Tenn.), May 12, 2021.
  2. Stipulation Purusant To Local Rule 12.1: GRILL, LLC, v. ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN,StipulationStipulation in Vitolo v. Guzman, No. 3:21-cv-176-TRM-DCP (E.D. Tenn.), July 14, 2021: defendant's response deadline extended to August 6, 2021.

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

Back to top