NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRESTIGE TRANSPORTATION, INC.; et No. 21-56129 al., D.C. No. Plaintiffs-Appellants, 2:20-cv-08963-SB-RAO v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted October 20, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON,** CHRISTEN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs challenge the Small Business Administration’s (“SBA”) responses to their applications for emergency disaster loans under the CARES Act. The district court dismissed plaintiff STAM Properties LLC’s (“STAM”) claims for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. lack of standing under Rule 12(b)(1) and dismissed plaintiff corporations Prestige Transportation Inc., Superior Overnight Services Inc., and Amerilogistics Group Inc.’s (“Corporate Plaintiffs”) claims under Rule 12(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Protection Corp., 732 F.3d 948, 951 (9th Cir. 2013) (12(b)(1) standard); Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (12(c) standard). We vacate and remand for further proceedings. 1. STAM. In this facial attack on subject matter jurisdiction, we must accept all allegations in STAM’s complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in STAM’s favor. Mecinas v. Hobbs, 30 F.4th 890, 896 (9th Cir. 2022); Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014). STAM’s complaint alleges it applied to the SBA for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) after the CARES Act was signed into law in March of 2020. It soon realized it needed to amend its application to receive a more favorable loan and a higher nonrepayable advance. But STAM alleges that it was unable to amend its application despite many attempts over a four-month period. STAM further alleges that it received conflicting information regarding the status of its loan application and attempts to amend it, including a denial letter. On July 16, 2020, while the news of the denial was in the mail, STAM spoke with an SBA agent who emailed instructions on how to request an increased loan 2 amount. But STAM did not pursue those instructions because it received the SBA’s denial letter (dated July 15) the next day, on July 17. On July 31, STAM reached an SBA agent who “confirmed that its application had been withdrawn because the company ‘failed to proceed’ and that no option to reopen or reactivate exists.” STAM then filed suit alleging that the SBA denied its application, and never provided the loan offer or advance to which STAM was entitled, because the SBA applied an illegal “de facto policy prohibiting amendments to filed applications,” which STAM dubs the “no amendment policy.” STAM deduces the existence of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals