Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration

Case docket

Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration — C.D. Cal., No. 2:24-cv-09553

Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration — 18 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed between November 5, 2024 and July 16, 2025. Among them: 4 orders, 3 responses or replies and 2 declarations.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filings18 public filings
Filed2024-11-05 – 2025-07-16
Document typesorders (4), responses or replies (3), declarations (2), motion (1), notice (1)
Original PDFs11 of 18

Case summary

Brandon Joe Williams filed this civil action against the U.S. Small Business Administration on September 20, 2024 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The SBA's filings state that the complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, a "currency" cause of action, contract fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of California statutes, and that the claims relate to the SBA's issuance and administration of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. The SBA removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 5, 2024 under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) and moved to dismiss. On December 30, 2024 the district court granted the motion to dismiss and denied Williams's motion to remand. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on July 16, 2025.

Case at a glance

PartiesPlaintiff: Brandon Joe Williams. Defendant: United States Small Business Administration
Court and docketU.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK, on removal from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles; on appeal, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 25-1808
ProgramEconomic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL); the SBA's opposition states that the plaintiff's claims relate to the SBA's issuance and administration of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan
ClaimsAs described in the SBA's filings: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, a "currency" cause of action, contract fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., violation of California Penal Code §§ 496, 236.1 and 487, and criminal violation of California Corporations Code § 25541, with most allegations drawn from sections of the Model Uniform Commercial Code. The complaint itself is not on this page
Disposition or statusDismissed. The district court granted the SBA's motion to dismiss and denied the motion to remand on December 30, 2024; it denied two further motions on February 27, 2025 and ruled on a request for judgment under Rule 58 on March 10, 2025, but those two orders are page-stamp scans that yield no text. Williams appealed on March 19, 2025, and on July 16, 2025 the Ninth Circuit granted summary disposition, affirmed the district court's judgment and denied all other pending motions as moot
Status checked2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read

What does the complaint claim?

The SBA's opposition of February 10, 2025 states that the complaint asserts claims against the SBA for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, a "currency" cause of action, contract fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq., violations of California Penal Code §§ 496, 236.1 and 487, and criminal violation of California Corporations Code § 25541, and that most of the allegations derive from sections of the Model Uniform Commercial Code.

What did the district court decide?

It granted the SBA's motion to dismiss and denied the motion to remand on December 30, 2024. The SBA's opposition states that the court determined the plaintiff's failure to oppose the motion to dismiss was deemed consent to granting it under Central District of California Local Rule 7-12, and that the plaintiff admitted he filed no opposition because he did not believe a responsive pleading was necessary.

What did the Ninth Circuit do?

In an order of July 16, 2025 in No. 25-1808, before Circuit Judges Silverman, Lee and VanDyke, the court granted the motion for summary disposition under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-6(a), affirmed the district court's judgment and denied all other pending motions as moot.

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

Filings

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

  1. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 1-1, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1-1 · PDF
  2. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 1, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1 · PDF
  3. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 23, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 23 · PDF
  4. Affidavit of Facts (Exhibit, Dkt. 25-1) — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Declaration
  5. Affidavit of Facts (Exhibit, Dkt. 27-1) — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Declaration
  6. Motion for leave to file response and to vacate order — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Motion
  7. Order to strike electronically filed documentsOrder
  8. SBA opposition to motion for reconsideration — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)PDF
  9. SBA response to plaintiff's objections to court order — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)PDF
  10. Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for leaveResponse or reply · PDF
  11. Plaintiff's response in opposition to SBA's response to objections — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Response or reply · PDF
  12. Second motion to vacate order and removal (Dkt. 32)
  13. SBA opposition to second motion for reconsiderationPDF
  14. Plaintiff's reply in support of second motion to vacate — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Response or reply · PDF
  15. Order denying Plaintiff's motions [Dkt. 27, 32]Order · PDF
  16. Order re: Request for Judgment Under Rule 58 — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Order
  17. Notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Notice · PDF
  18. Order — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Ninth Circuit) (C.D. Cal.)Order

Other cases in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

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

Back to top