Order Setting Briefing Schedule — No. 4:20-cv-10899 (Dkt. 18, E.D. Mich.)

Summary

An order setting a briefing schedule in DV Diamond Club of Flint, LLC, et al. v. United States Small Business Administration, et al., Case No. 20-cv-10899, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, filed April 20, 2020 as ECF No. 18 (3 pages) and signed by Judge Matthew F. Leitman. The plaintiffs, who operate adult entertainment venues, say an SBA regulation unconstitutionally bars them from Paycheck Protection Program loans, and seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 12). Plaintiffs' loan applications go to the defendants by April 20, 2020, the defendants respond by April 24, 2020, and the plaintiffs reply by 9:00 a.m. on April 27, 2020, with a Zoom hearing that week.

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

Full text

Case 4:20-cv-10899-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 3




                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                       EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
                            SOUTHERN DIVISION

  DV DIAMOND CLUB
  OF FLINT, LLC, et al.,

        Plaintiffs,                                  Case No. 20-cv-10899
                                                     Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
  v.

  UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS
  ADMINISTRATION, et al.,


       Defendants.
  __________________________________________________________________/

       ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFFS’
    RENEWED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A TEMPORARY
                 RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR
              PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (ECF No. 12)

        Plaintiffs “own and operate venues that present clothed, semi-nude, and/or

  nude performance entertainment, similar retail establishments, and businesses that

  service those establishments.” (Mot., ECF No. 12, PageID.475.) Plaintiffs have each

  applied for loans, or attempted to apply for loans, under the Paycheck Protection

  Program (the “PPP”) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.

  Plaintiffs say that Defendants have promulgated and wrongly enforced against them

  an unconstitutional regulation that prevents banks from providing loans under the

  PPP to businesses that derive more than a de-minimus portion of their gross revenues

  from entertainment of a “prurient sexual nature.” (Id., PageID.472.)


                                           1
Case 4:20-cv-10899-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 3




        The Court held an on-the-record video conference with counsel for all parties

  on April 20, 2020, to discuss a schedule for Plaintiffs’ emergency motion. During

  that conference, counsel for Defendants informed the Court that if Plaintiffs’ counsel

  provided to Defendants’ counsel completed and submitted loan applications from

  each of the Plaintiffs, Defendants would likely be able to set aside the funds that

  Plaintiffs requested in those applications while the Court decides the pending

  emergency motion. Assuming that the Defendants will be able to set aside those

  funds, the Court sets the following schedule with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion:

      By no later than 12:00 p.m. on April 20, 2020, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall

        provide to Defendants’ counsel all loan applications in his possession.

        Plaintiffs’ counsel shall collect all loan applications not currently in his

        possession and provide those to Defendants’ counsel by no later than 5:00

        p.m. on April 20, 2020.

      By no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 21, 2020, Defendants shall inform the

        parties and the Court if the Defendants have set aside the funding requested

        by Plaintiffs in the loan applications. If the Defendants cannot set aside the

        requested funds, then the Court will convene a status conference with counsel

        to discuss what adjustments to the schedule, if any, are necessary.

      By no later than April 24, 2020, Defendants shall file their response to

        Plaintiffs’ emergency motion.


                                            2
Case 4:20-cv-10899-MFL-DRG ECF No. 18, PageID.<pageID> Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 3




      By no later than 9:00 a.m. on April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs shall file a reply brief.

      The Court will schedule a Zoom hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for the week of

        April 27, 2020.

      A representative of the Small Business Association who can testify as a

        deponent under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) shall be made

        available for a deposition within 48 hours of the Court’s hearing on Plaintiffs’

        motion if the Court determines during the hearing that such a deposition is

        necessary to resolve the motion.

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                           s/Matthew F. Leitman
                                           MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
                                           UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
  Dated: April 20, 2020

         I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
  parties and/or counsel of record on April 20, 2020, by electronic means and/or
  ordinary mail.

                                           s/ Holly A. Monda
                                           Case Manager
                                           (810) 341-9764




                                             3


File and source

File

18.pdf

Size

212,755 bytes

SHA-256

048e9a6a792a75f267fcb7a775ca002f69ef33d7b41f1479be922496601ac7e2

Our copy

18.pdf

Original

No public link identified.