United States' Complaint in Intervention — United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. Passive Income Advisors, LLC
Summary
The United States' Complaint in Intervention, filed October 3, 2024 as Document 36 in United States of America ex rel. Bryan Quesenberry versus Passive Income Advisors, LLC and Gena Lofton, Case No. 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The United States sues under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33, and for unjust enrichment and payment by mistake. It alleges that the Defendants obtained and retained a PPP loan for $1,199,999 although PIA had no employees, payroll or eligible owner compensation, and claims a total loss of $1,235,998.97, including lender processing fees of $35,999.97. The complaint seeks treble damages and civil penalties on its False Claims Act counts, demands a jury trial, and is signed by Jared S. Wiesner.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“United States' Complaint in Intervention — United States ex rel. Quesenberry v. Passive Income Advisors, LLC.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/36-amended-complaint-against-passive-income-advisors-llc-gena-l-2bce292bc6/
, SHA-256 c230a881cd32640b06f559b3871e137bc64e5316fa5c09bbe6496bcbf6751f63.Full text
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 1 of 14
1 BRIAN M. BOYTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2 JAMIE ANN YAVELBERG
COLIN M. HUNTLEY
3 JARED S. WIESNER
Attorneys, Civil Division
4 United States Department of Justice
P.O. Box 261
5 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
6 Phone: 202-353-1274
Fax: 202-541-0280
7 jared.s.wiesner2@usdoj.gov
8 Attorneys for the United States
9
10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
11
United States of America ex rel. Case No. 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC
12 Bryan Quesenberry,
13 Plaintiffs, United States’ Complaint in
Intervention
14 v.
Jury Trial Demanded
15 Passive Income Advisors, LLC, and
Gena Lofton,
16
Defendants.
17
18 INTRODUCTION
19 1. The United States brings this action for damages and statutory penalties
20 under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 and the common law,
21 including equitable theories of unjust enrichment and payment by mistake, in connection
22 with a federally guaranteed Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan improperly
23 obtained and retained by Passive Income Advisors, LLC (“PIA”) and its owner Gena
24 Lofton (“Lofton”).
25 2. PIA and Lofton, collectively referred to herein as “the Defendants,” made
26 false or fraudulent statements and caused false claims to be submitted to the United States
27 in an effort to obtain a federally guaranteed PPP loan. Specifically, the Defendants
28
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 14
1 improperly obtained and retained a PPP loan for $1,199,999, despite the fact that the
2 Defendants knew that PIA did not have any (1) employees, (2) payroll, or (3) eligible
3 owner compensation. As a result, the Defendants caused the United States Small Business
4 Administration (“SBA”) to pay Federal funds to a financial institution that disbursed the
5 nearly $1.2 million PPP loan to PIA. If the Defendants had truthfully stated that PIA did
6 not have any employees, payroll, or eligible owner compensation, PIA never would have
7 received a PPP loan. The Defendants’ false statements and improper retention of the PPP
8 loan caused the United States to pay lender processing fees of $35,999.97 and purchase the
9 guaranty of the improper PPP loan in the amount of $1,199,999 causing the United States
10 to sustain a total loss of $1,235,998.97.
11 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the United States’ claims
13 brought under the FCA, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3279, et seq., pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730 and 3732.
14 This Court has supplemental jurisdiction to entertain the common law and equitable causes
15 of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
16 2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §
17 3732(a) because (A) at all times material hereto PIA transacted business in the District of
18 Nevada; and (B) individual defendant Lofton resided in the District of Nevada, and acts
19 proscribed by 31 U.S.C. § 3729 occurred in this district.
20 3. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3732(a), and under 28
21 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1395(a) because (A) PIA can be found in the District of Nevada; and
22 (B) individual defendant Lofton resided within the District of Nevada. Furthermore, acts
23 that form the basis of this Complaint in Intervention occurred in the District of Nevada.
24 PARTIES
25 I. The United States
26 4. The United States brings this action on behalf of the SBA. The SBA is the
27 federal agency that administers the PPP.
28
2
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 3 of 14
1 II. Relator
2 5. Bryan Quesenberry (“Relator”) is a resident of Oregon. In his capacity as a
3 Relator, he filed the original qui tam complaint in this action on behalf of the United States,
4 the real party in interest.
5 III. Defendants
6 6. Defendant PIA is a limited liability company organized in Wyoming and
7 registered with the Nevada Secretary of State as a “foreign limited liability company.”
8 Gena Lofton is named as PIA’s “Manager” with an address in Minden, Nevada. PIA
9 purports to be an “asset management company” that manages apartment buildings. PIA
10 listed its business address as Las Vegas, Nevada, on its PPP loan application.
11 7. Defendant Lofton has a residence in Las Vegas, Nevada. Lofton is PIA’s
12 owner and she signed PIA’s PPP loan application on behalf of PIA. Lofton listed her
13 address as Las Vegas, Nevada, on PIA’s PPP loan application.
14 LEGAL BACKGROUND
15 I. The CARES Act and Paycheck Protection Program
16 8. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
17 Act (“CARES Act”) (Pub. L. 116-136) was enacted to provide emergency assistance and
18 health care response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the Coronavirus
19 Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Section 1102 of the CARES Act temporarily
20 permitted the SBA to guarantee 100 percent of 7(a) loans made by participating lenders
21 under a new program titled the “Paycheck Protection Program,” pursuant to section
22 7(a)(36) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)). Section 1102(F)(ii)(I) of the
23 CARES Act stated that all PPP lenders were deemed to have been delegated authority by
24 the SBA Administrator to make and approve PPP loans (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)(F)(ii)(I)).
25 Section 1106 of the CARES Act provided for forgiveness of up to the full principal amount
26 of qualifying loans guaranteed under the PPP.
27 9. In order to obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business, through its authorized
28 representative, signed and submitted a PPP loan application to the lender with delegated
3
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 4 of 14
1 authority from the SBA, using SBA Form 2483 (hereafter “Application Form
2 2483”). Application Form 2483 required the applicant to acknowledge the PPP
3 program rules and make certain affirmative certifications regarding program
4 eligibility.
5 10. If the lender approved the borrower’s application, the lender submitted
6 information from the borrower’s application to the SBA via the agency’s electronic “E-
7 Tran” processing system. E-Tran prompted the lender to enter information from
8 Application Form 2483 into certain data fields. Based on the lender’s electronic
9 submission, the loan was assigned a loan number, and the SBA provided a loan guarantee
10 to the lender. The lender then disbursed the loan to the borrower using its own funds and
11 notified the SBA that the loan was fully disbursed. Upon receipt of that notification, the
12 SBA paid the lender a processing fee.
13 11. To be eligible for a PPP loan in 2020, a borrower was required to have
14 documented eligible payroll expenses or, in the case of sole proprietorships, owner
15 compensation.
16 12. Assuming that a borrower met all other eligibility criteria and had payroll
17 expenses or owner compensation, the dollar amount of a PPP loan was generally
18 determined by the company’s average monthly payroll costs for the one-year period before
19 the date the loan was made, multiplied by 2.5. The PPP loan application further stated,
20 “For purposes of calculating ‘Average Monthly Payroll,’ most Applicants will use the
21 average monthly payroll for 2019, excluding costs over $100,000 on an annualized bases
22 for each employee.”
23 13. A PPP loan recipient could apply for forgiveness at any time up to the
24 maturity date of the loan. If borrowers did not apply for forgiveness within ten months
25 after the maturity date, PPP loan payments were no longer deferred, and borrowers had to
26 begin making loan payments to their PPP lender. If a borrower’s PPP loan was over 60
27 days past due, the lender could request purchase of the loan by the SBA pursuant to the
28 agency’s loan guarantee.
4
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 5 of 14
1 II. The False Claims Act
2 14. Originally enacted in the 1863 to combat fraud against the Union Army
3 during the Civil War, the False Claims Act is the primary tool with which the United States
4 combats fraud against the Government and protects the federal fisc. The Supreme Court
5 has held that the FCA’s provisions must be construed broadly to reach “all types of fraud,
6 without qualification, that might result in financial loss to the Government.” United States
7 v. Neifert-White Co., 390 U.S. 228, 232 (1968).
8 15. The FCA establishes liability for various forms of conduct related to the
9 submission of a false or fraudulent claim for payment from the federal government. The
10 FCA imposes liability for knowingly presenting false claims for federal funds, or for
11 causing such false claims to be presented. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). The statute also
12 establishes liability for knowingly making, using, or causing a false record or statement
13 material to a false claim for federal funds. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B). Finally, the statute
14 establishes liability for knowingly concealing or knowingly and improperly avoiding or
15 decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government. 31
16 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G).
17 16. The terms “knowing” and “knowingly” are defined by the FCA to mean that,
18 with respect to the subject false information, a person has actual knowledge of the falsity,
19 acts in deliberate ignorance of the truth or falsity, or acts in reckless disregard of the truth or
20 falsity, and proof of specific intent to defraud is not required. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b).
21 17. As defined in the FCA, the term “claim” means any request or demand for
22 money or property that is presented or caused to be presented to the United States; or that is
23 made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money is to be spent or used on
24 behalf of the Government or to advance a Government program or interest, so long as the
25 United States provides or has provided any portion of the subject money or property or will
26 reimburse such contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the subject money
27 or property. Id.
28 18. The term “material” is defined in the FCA to mean having a natural tendency
5
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 6 of 14
1 to influence, or be capable of influencing, the payment or receipt of money or
2 property. Id.
3 19. The FCA provides for a recovery of three times the damages sustained
4 by the United States (treble damages), plus a civil penalty for each violation. 31
5 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1). Pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, all civil
6 statutory penalties, including those set forth in the FCA, are required to be adjusted
7 annually for inflation. See Pub. Law. No. 114-74, § 701, 129 Stat. 584, 599. At this
8 time, FCA penalties assessed after February 12, 2024, whose associated violations
9 occurred after November 2, 2015, are no less than $13,946 and no more than
10 $27,894 for each violation. See 28 C.F.R. § 85.5 (Adjustments to penalties for
11 violations occurring after November 2, 2015).
12 DEFENDANTS’ FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY
13 20. The Defendants knowingly made and caused to be presented false claims
14 and statements to the SBA, in order to improperly obtain and retain the funds of a PPP
15 loan administered by the SBA. PIA – through Lofton – improperly applied for and
16 received a PPP loan for $1,199,999 despite having no employees, payroll, or eligible owner
17 compensation in 2019, in violation of PPP rules.
18 21. On or about May 11, 2020, PIA submitted Application Form 2483 to lender
19 Greater Nevada Credit Union seeking a PPP loan (“PIA PPP Loan”). Lofton signed the
20 loan application on behalf of PIA. Lofton falsely certified that “the information provided
21 in all supporting documents and forms is true and accurate in all material respects” by
22 stating that PIA had five employees and an average monthly payroll of $1 million. Lofton
23 knew that (a) PIA did not have any employees or payroll in 2019; (b) PIA had net negative
24 income in 2019; (c) PIA was not eligible to receive a PPP loan in the amount of
25 $1,199,999.
26 22. Lofton also falsely certified that, as of February 15, 2020, PIA “had
27 employees for whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors, as
28 reported on Form(s) 1099-MISC.” Lofton knew that PIA did not have any employees for
6
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 7 of 14
1 whom it paid salaries and payroll taxes as of February 15, 2020, and that PIA was
2 ineligible to receive a $1,199,999 PPP loan.
3 23. Based on this application and the eligibility certifications therein, Greater
4 Nevada Credit Union electronically submitted information from Application Form 2483 to
5 the SBA. This electronic submission caused the SBA to assign a loan number and provide
6 a loan guarantee to Greater Nevada Credit Union.
7 24. Lofton listed herself as the 100% owner of PIA in the PPP Loan application
8 that she submitted on behalf of PIA.
9 25. On or about June 4, 2020, Greater Nevada Credit Union disbursed loan
10 #5015517403 to PIA in the amount of $1,199,999 and notified the SBA that the loan had
11 been funded.
12 26. The false and fraudulent statements and claims alleged herein were material
13 to the SBA’s decision to pay processing fees and guarantee the PIA PPP Loan.
14 27. In or about July 2020, Greater Nevada Credit Union transferred the PIA
15 PPP Loan to Fountainhead SBF LLC (“Fountainhead”).
16 28. On or about July 14, 2021, Defendants applied for loan forgiveness for the
17 PIA PPP Loan. On the forgiveness application, Lofton stated that PIA had zero
18 “Employees at Time of Loan Application” and that PIA had one “Employees at Time of
19 Forgiveness Application.”
20 29. The loan forgiveness application submitted by Defendants expressly warned
21 that “The Borrower’s eligibility for loan forgiveness will be evaluated in accordance with
22 the PPP regulations and guidance issued by SBA through the date of this application.” In
23 the forgiveness application for the PIA PPP Loan, Defendants falsely certified, expressly or
24 impliedly, that PIA was eligible for the loan, that PIA satisfied all PPP rules and
25 requirements with regard to the loan, and that PIA was eligible for loan forgiveness in the
26 full amount of the loan.
27 30. The SBA denied PIA’s application for forgiveness of the PIA PPP Loan on
28 or about February 2, 2022. The SBA explained:
7
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 8 of 14
1 After review of the documentation provided, the SBA concludes that the
borrower did not have any eligible payroll cost at the time of loan application.
2 In addition, the SBA concludes that there was a failure to respond to SBA’s
3 inquiry for request of additional required information.
4 The 2019 Schedule C Form demonstrates a negative net income, indicating the
Borrower may have not been eligible to receive a PPP loan. The reviewer
5 requested documentation to determine the maximum loan amount such as the
lender analysis of the loan amount at origination on September 9th, 23rd,
6 October 1st, 12th, 21st and November 4th, 2021, without receiving the
7 requested documentation. Thus, the Reviewer was unable to make a
conclusion due to the lack of response to requests for required documentation
8 deeming the Borrower ineligible to participate in the Paycheck Protection
Program.
9
10 31. On or about February 15, 2022, Lofton wrote to the SBA to advise
11 that she disagreed with SBA’s denial of loan forgiveness for the PIA PPP Loan.
12 Lofton argued, in part, that “[t]he appropriate time to determine that I did not
13 qualify, or was ineligible, seems to have been when the application was being
14 reviewed for approval, NOT after the funds of $1,199,999.00 were approved and
15 disbursed. Additionally, I disagree with the decision that $0.00 of the loan is
16 forgivable.”
17 32. Despite Defendants false and fraudulent certifications, and the SBA’s
18 denial of loan forgiveness, Defendants knowingly and improperly retained the PIA
19 PPP Loan.
20 33. Defendants failed to make required timely payments on the PIA PPP
21 Loan. On or about March 7, 2022, Fountainhead charged off the PIA PPP loan,
22 which the SBA purchased pursuant to its guaranty on or about March 9, 2022.
23 34. On or about May 10, 2022, the SBA again denied PIA’s application
24 for forgiveness of the PIA PPP Loan in full and informed Fountainhead. In its
25 determination, SBA explained:
26 After review of the documentation provided, the SBA concludes that the
27 borrower did not have any eligible payroll cost at the time of loan application.
28
8
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 9 of 14
1 According to the 2019 Schedule C Form, the Borrower had a negative net
income of -$56,265, indicating no eligible owner compensation. Additionally,
2 there is no amount listed for salaries and wages on the 2019 Schedule C Form
3 nor any 2019 941 Forms documenting employee compensation to determine
the maximum eligible PPP loan amount. Thus, forgiveness cannot be
4 supported in consequence of no eligible payroll costs at the time of PPP loan
application.
5
6 35. As a result of PIA’s fraudulent scheme and knowingly false representations
7 of PPP eligibility, the Defendants received CARES Act funding that they would not have
8 received but for the false statements and knowing and improper retention of the improper
9 PIA PPP Loan as alleged herein.
10
COUNT I
11 (False Claims Act: Presentation of False Claim for Payment)
(31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A))
12
36. The United States re-alleges and incorporates in this Count I the above
13
paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention.
14
37. By virtue of the acts described above, Defendants knowingly presented or
15
caused to be presented materially false or fraudulent claims for payment or approval to the
16
SBA in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(A); that is, Defendants
17
knowingly and falsely stated in Application Form 2483 that PIA had employees, payroll,
18
or eligible owner compensation to support a $1,199,999 PPP loan and that the company
19
was eligible under applicable rules and regulations, that resulted in the SBA disbursing
20
processing fees to the lender, guarantying the full amount of the loan, and ultimately
21
purchasing and forgiving the improper PIA PPP Loan. Thereafter, in the forgiveness
22
application for the improper PIA PPP Loan, Defendants falsely certified, expressly or
23
impliedly, that PIA was eligible for the loan, that PIA satisfied all PPP rules and
24
requirements with regard to the loan, and that PIA was eligible for loan forgiveness in the
25
full amount of the loan.
26
38. Payment of the false and fraudulent claims was a reasonable and foreseeable
27
consequence of Defendants’ conduct.
28
9
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 10 of 14
1 39. The United States was unaware of the falsity of the records,
2 statements, and claims Defendants made, submitted, or caused to be submitted.
3 40. The false or fraudulent representations and claims Defendants
4 knowingly made to the United States were material to the United States’ decisions
5 to make payments to Defendants.
6 41. By reason of the foregoing, the United States has been damaged in an
7 amount to be determined at trial and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a
8 civil monetary penalty for each false and fraudulent claim.
9
COUNT II
10 (False Claims Act: False Records or Statements Material to a False or Fraudulent
Claim)
11 (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(B))
12 42. The United States re-alleges and incorporates in this Count II the above
13 paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention.
14 43. By virtue of the acts described above, Defendants made, used, or caused to
15 be made or used, false records or statements – namely, false claims and false statements in
16 their application for the improper PIA PPP Loan that resulted in the SBA disbursing
17 processing fees to the lender, guarantying the full amount of the loan, and ultimately
18 purchasing and forgiving the loan – all of which were material to false or fraudulent claims
19 that were submitted to the United States and paid and approved by the SBA, in violation of
20 the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(B).
21 44. Defendants’ false certifications and representations were made for the
22 purpose of ensuring that the United States paid the false or fraudulent claims, which was a
23 reasonable and foreseeable consequence of the Defendants’ conduct.
24 45. The United States was unaware of the falsity of the records, statements, and
25 claims Defendants made, submitted, or caused to be made or submitted, and in reliance on
26 the accuracy of these records or statements, the United States paid false or fraudulent
27 claims.
28
10
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 11 of 14
1 46. The false and fraudulent representations and claims Defendants knowingly
2 made to the United States were material to the United States’ decisions to make payments
3 to Defendants.
4 47. By reason of the foregoing, the United States has been damaged in an
5 amount to be determined at trial and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil
6 monetary penalty for each false and fraudulent claim.
7
COUNT III
8 (False Claims Act: Reverse False Claim)
(31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(G))
9
48. The United States re-alleges and incorporates in this Count III the above
10
paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention.
11
49. By virtue of the acts described above, Defendants knowingly made, used, or
12
caused to be made or used, a false record or statement material to an obligation to pay or
13
transmit money or property to the Government, or knowingly concealed or knowingly and
14
improperly avoided or decreased an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the
15
Government, in violation of the FCA, 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(l)(G). Defendants knowingly and
16
improperly retained the PIA PPP Loan despite knowing PIA had no employees, payroll, or
17
eligible owner compensation and, thereafter, Defendants knowingly and improperly avoided
18
their obligation to repay the PIA PPP Loan that they understood they never should have
19
received in the first instance.
20
50. By reason of the foregoing, the United States has been damaged in an amount
21
to be determined at trial and is entitled to recover treble damages plus a civil monetary
22
penalty for each false and fraudulent claim.
23
Count IV
24 (Unjust Enrichment)
25 51. The United States re-alleges and incorporates in this Count IV the above
26 paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention and pleads this count in the alternative.
27 52. By virtue of the acts described above, Defendants knowingly made materially
28 false or fraudulent statements in violation of federal law that resulted in the United States
11
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 12 of 14
1 and lenders acting on behalf of the United States paying Defendants certain sums of
2 money. Defendants’ receipt of payments based on their false certifications are such that, in
3 equity and good conscience, Defendants should not retain those payments.
4 53. The United States has and continues to have a reasonable expectation
5 of payment of the monies paid to Defendants based on false or fraudulent claims.
6 54. Defendants should reasonably have expected and should reasonably be
7 expected to pay to the United States the monies paid to Defendants based on false
8 or fraudulent claims.
9 55. Society’s reasonable expectations of person and property would be
10 defeated by Defendants’ nonpayment to the United States of the monies paid to
11 Defendants.
12 56. By reason of Defendants’ acts, the United States has been damaged in
13 an amount to be determined at trial.
14 Count V
15 (Payment by Mistake)
57. The United States re-alleges and incorporates in this Count V the
16
above paragraphs of this Complaint in Intervention and pleads this count in the
17
alternative.
18
58. The United States’ agents paid the claims and statements Defendants
19
submitted or caused to be submitted based upon mistaken or erroneous
20
understandings of material fact.
21
59. The United States and lenders acting on the United States’ behalf,
22
acting in reasonable reliance on the accuracy and truthfulness of the information
23
contained in Defendants’ claims and statements, paid Defendants certain sums of
24
money, in an amount to be proven at trial, to which they were not entitled, and
25
Defendants are thus liable to account and pay such amounts to the United States.
26
27
28
12
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 13 of 14
1 60. By reason of the foregoing conduct of Defendants, the United States and
2 lenders acting on behalf of the United States made payments under mistake of fact.
3 61. As a result of these payments made by the United States and lenders acting
4 on behalf of the United States under mistake of fact, the United States has sustained
5 damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
6 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
7 WHEREFORE, the United States demands judgment in its favor and against
8 Defendants as follows:
9 I. On Count I under the False Claims Act, for the amount of the United States’
10 damages to be established at trial, trebled as required by law, and such civil
11 penalties as are authorized by law, and all such further relief the Court deems
12 just and proper.
13 II. On Count II under the False Claims Act, for the amount of the United States’
14 damages to be established at trial, trebled as required by law, and such civil
15 penalties as are authorized by law, and all such further relief the Court deems
16 just and proper.
17 III. On Count III under the False Claims Act, for the amount of the United States’
18 damages to be established at trial, trebled as required by law, and such civil
19 penalties as are authorized by law, and all such further relief the Court deems
20 just and proper.
21 IV. On Count IV for unjust enrichment, for the amounts by which Defendants
22 were unjustly enriched, plus interest, costs, expenses, and for all such further
23 relief as may be just and proper.
24 V. On Count V for payment by mistake, for the amount of the United States paid
25 by mistake, plus interest, costs, and expenses, and for all such further relief as
26 may be just and proper.
27
28
13
Case 2:20-cv-01537-RFB-MDC Document 36 Filed 10/03/24 Page 14 of 14
1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 The United States demands a jury trial in this case.
3 Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October 2024
4 BRIAN M. BOYTON
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
5 General
6 /s/ Jared S. Wiesner
Jared S. Wiesner
7 Trial Attorney, Civil Division
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
File and source
- File
- 36-amended-complaint-against-passive-income-advisors-llc-gena-l.pdf
- Size
- 134,652 bytes
- SHA-256
- c230a881cd32640b06f559b3871e137bc64e5316fa5c09bbe6496bcbf6751f63
- Original
- No public link identified.