Court filing
Order Directing Mootness Briefing — Vitolo v. Guzman
Filed June 4, 2021 in Vitolo v. Guzman; one of 25 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-06-04 |
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · No. 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP · Doc. 42 · 2021-06-04 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ANTONIO VITOLO et al., Plaintiffs, v. ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:21-cv-176 Judge Travis R. McDonough Magistrate Judge Debra C. Poplin ORDER Before the Court is a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiffs Byron Sackett, Homesteads Management, LLC, Kevin L. Pearson, S & K Soup Co., Alfred Castiglioni, The 579 LLC, Chardonnays Inc., Zinfandel LLC, Denis Flanagan, and 3KAD LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Doc. 39.) The Government has responded to Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction are not warranted because Plaintiffs’ claims are moot. (See Doc. 41.) In support of their response, the Government submitted the declaration of John A. Miller, Deputy Associate Administrator of Capital Access at the Small Business Association (“SBA”). (Doc. 41-1.) In his declaration, Miller declared under the penalty of perjury that: SBA has already commenced processing non-priority applications, including the Plaintiffs’ applications, in a sequential order based on its ordinary review practices. (Id. at 3.) SBA is not currently processing any priority applications. It will only resume processing for priority applications once it completes processing for all previously filed non-priority applications, and only then if the Restaurant Revitalization Fund is not first exhausted. (Id. at 3–4.) Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP Document 42 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 349 2 SBA has already initiated processing and consideration for all of Plaintiffs’ applications. (Id. at 4–5.) In light of the Miller declaration, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to reply to the Government’s response on or before June 7, 2021, specifically addressing the Government’s mootness arguments and providing any evidence Plaintiffs may have to rebut the Miller declaration. SO ORDERED. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 3:21-cv-00176-TRM-DCP Document 42 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 350
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.tned.99748.42.0.pdf
- Size
- 149,256 bytes
- SHA-256
- 7fbc3f2ebbd6ebd4338b7dad19b18456336ce961dd921f6b9a7cfd6fc4425665
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.tned.99748.42.0.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.