Case docket
Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply v. Capital Plus Financial, LLC — N.D. Tex., No. 3:21-cv-2636-B
Womply v. Capital Plus — 3 court filings in the archive from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, filed between October 25, 2021 and May 11, 2022. Among them: 1 notice and 1 opinion.
See also: Oto Analytics Inc. v. Capital Plus Financial LLC — the same docket under another case page, 8 public filings; 1 of the documents appear on both pages.
Case facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division |
|---|---|
| Filings | 3 public filings |
| Filed | 2021-10-25 – 2022-05-11 |
| Document types | notice (1), opinion (1) |
| Original PDFs | 1 of 3 |
Case summary
Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply filed this action on September 9, 2021 in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, 95th Judicial District, Cause No. DC-21-13097. Capital Plus Financial, LLC, Crossroads Systems, Inc. and Eric Donnelly removed it to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, on October 25, 2021, invoking federal-question jurisdiction and the federal officer removal statute. The court's memorandum opinion of May 11, 2022 describes a dispute among three parties who agreed to process Paycheck Protection Program loans and divide the SBA fees earned. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissing counts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 without prejudice and allowing Womply thirty days to file a second amended complaint.
Case at a glance
| Parties | Plaintiff: Oto Analytics, Inc. d/b/a Womply. Defendants: Capital Plus Financial, LLC, Crossroads Systems, Inc. and Eric Donnelly, together called the Capital Plus Defendants in the court's opinion |
|---|---|
| Court and docket | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Civil Action No. 3:21-cv-2636-B, removed from the 95th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. DC-21-13097 |
| Program | Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) |
| Claims | As listed by the court, the amended complaint of December 23, 2021 brings claims for declaratory judgment, tortious interference with contracts, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, quantum meruit and civil conspiracy |
| Disposition or status | Memorandum opinion and order of May 11, 2022 granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss: counts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 dismissed without prejudice, the motion denied as to counts 1, 2, 3 and 9, with leave to file a second amended complaint within thirty days |
| Status checked | 2026-09-23 · against DOJ press releases through 2026-09-22; court docket not yet read |
What is the dispute about?
Fees for processing PPP loans. The opinion describes three parties who agreed to process PPP loans and divide the SBA fees earned, and records Womply's allegation that it developed an internet portal through which borrowers could submit applications to PPP lenders and a technology platform for reviewing, approving and servicing small-dollar PPP loans, on which it says it spent over $268 million.
Why was the case in federal court?
The defendants removed it on October 25, 2021, stating that although the plaintiff asserted only state common law claims, the viability of each claim depends on interpretation of federal law governing the Paycheck Protection Program, and invoking both federal-question jurisdiction and the federal officer removal statute.
What did the court decide?
It granted the motion to dismiss as to counts 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, dismissing them without prejudice, denied it as to counts 1, 2, 3 and 9, and gave Womply thirty days to file a second amended complaint, after which the defendants have twenty-one days to answer or move to dismiss.
Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.
Filings
3 public filings from this case, in filing-date order.
Court, dates and docket numbers are as recorded on the filings.