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. U.S. Small Business Administration — C.D. Cal., No. 2:24-cv-09553 — 29 documents in the archive, dated November 5, 2024 to July 16, 2025.

Case facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Docket numbersNo. 2:24-cv-09553 — main docket · CourtListener docket 69344443
No. 2:24-cv-09553 (no document in the archive is numbered on it) — other docket filed with this case
Filings29 public filings
Filed2024-11-05 – 2025-07-16
Original PDFs29 of 29

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.

Docket

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

No. 2:24-cv-09553 — main docket

  1. Civil Cover Sheet — No. 2:24-cv-09553 (Dkt. 2, C.D. Cal.)Entry 2
  2. —Entry 3 is not in the archive
  3. Notice to Parties of Court-Directed ADR Program — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 4, C.D. Cal.)Entry 4
  4. Notice to Counsel re Consent to Proceed Before a United States Magistrate JudgeEntry 5
  5. Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 6, C.D. Cal.)Entry 6
  6. Proof of Service of Standing Order Regarding Newly Assigned Cases [Dkt. 6]Entry 7
  7. —Entry 8 is not in the archive
  8. Order Setting Scheduling Conference — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 9, C.D. Cal.)Entry 9
  9. —Entry 10 is not in the archive
  10. Order re Application for Permission — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 11, C.D. Cal.)Entry 11
  11. —Entries 12–13 are not in the archive
  12. Notice to Filer of Deficiencies in Filed Document — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 14, C.D. Cal.)Entry 14
  13. Order in Response to Notice to Filer of Deficiencies in Filed DocumentEntry 15
  14. Certificate of Interested Parties Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1-1 and the Court’s Order [Dkt. 15]Entry 16
  15. —Entry 17 is not in the archive
  16. Certificate of Interested Parties Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1-1 and the Court’s Order [Dkt. 15]Entry 18
  17. Certificate of Interested Parties Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1-1 and the Court’s Order [Dkt. 15]Entry 19
  18. Joint Scheduling Conference Statement — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 20, C.D. Cal.)Entry 20
  19. —Entry 21 is not in the archive
  20. Notice to Filer of Deficiencies in Filed Document — Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 22, C.D. Cal.)Entry 22
  21. —Entries 23–24 are not in the archive
  22. —Entry 25: main document not in the archive
  23. Affidavit of Facts (Exhibit, Dkt. 25-1) — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 25, attachment 1
  24. Order to strike electronically filed documents — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 26
  25. Motion for leave to file response and to vacate order — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 27
  26. Affidavit of Facts (Exhibit, Dkt. 27-1) — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 27, attachment 1
  27. SBA response to plaintiff's objections to court order — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 28
  28. SBA opposition to motion for reconsideration — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 29
  29. Plaintiff's response in opposition to SBA's response to objections — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 30
  30. Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for leave — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 31
  31. Second motion to vacate order and removal (Dkt. 32) — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 32
  32. —Entry 33 is not in the archive
  33. SBA opposition to second motion for reconsideration — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 34
  34. Plaintiff's reply in support of second motion to vacate — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 35
  35. Order denying Plaintiff's motions [Dkt. 27, 32] — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 36
  36. —Entry 37 is not in the archive
  37. Order re: Request for Judgment Under Rule 58 — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 38
  38. Notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit — Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (C.D. Cal.)Entry 39

Documents without an entry number

  1. Order — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Ninth Circuit) (C.D. Cal.)

More documents from this case’s dockets

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

  1. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 1-3, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1-3 · PDF
  2. Exhibit 1 (Complaint) — Brandon Joe Williams v. SBA (C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1-1 · PDF
  3. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 1-4, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1-4 · PDF
  4. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 1-5, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1-5 · PDF
  5. Court filing — Brandon Joe Williams v. U.S. Small Business Administration (Dkt. 1-2, C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1-2 · PDF
  6. Notice of Removal — Brandon Joe Williams v. SBA (C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 1 · PDF
  7. Order — Brandon Joe Williams v. SBA (C.D. Cal.)Dkt. 23 · PDF

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