This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Paycheck Protection Program

M&M Consulting Group, LLC v. JP Morgan Bank, N.A. et al.

Published: Jan. 29, 2021 | Result Date: Dec. 21, 2020 | Filing Date: Jul. 22, 2020 |

Case number: 8:20-cv-01318-JVS-KESx Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

James V. Selna

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael E. Adler
(GrayLaw Group Inc.)

Mark J. Geragos
(Geragos & Geragos APC)

Matthew M. Hoesly
(Geragos & Geragos APC)

Benjamin J. Meiselas
(Geragos & Geragos APC)

Nitoj P. Singh
(Dhillon Law Group Inc.)

Harmeet K. Dhillon
(Dhillon Law Group Inc.)


Defendant

David B. Bergman
(Arnold & Porter LLP)

Patrick Dorsey
(Arnold & Porter LLP)

Cassandra E. Havens
(Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP)

Sharon D. Mayo
(Arnold & Porter LLP)

Laura E. Watson
(Arnold & Porter LLP)

Karin Bohmholdt
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)

Robert J. Herrington
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)


Facts

Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, which provided $377 billion in federally funded loans to small businesses and a $500 billion government-lending program as administered by the Small Business Administration. In addition, the CARES Act provided the Paycheck Protection Program, which gave small loans to businesses. Plaintiff, M&M Consulting Group, is a company that assisted borrowers in applying for federally guaranteed loans through the PPP. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant J.P. Morgan for unjust enrichment, breach of an implied contract, conversion and violation of the CARES Act and Section 7(a) of the SBA for its failure to pay required agent fees as mandated by the CARES act and other SBA Regulations.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant did not follow the guidance and other rules with respect to paying the borrower's agent such as plaintiff. Specifically, plaintiff contended that defendant failed to respond to plaintiff's request for agent fees. Further, plaintiff contended that defendant purposefully avoided the identity of borrower agents within defendant's loan application process. Lastly, plaintiff contended that defendant refused to fill out a Form 159 even after finding out the identity of the borrower agent.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint.


#136463

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390