United States of America v. Washington

Filing 7

ORDER granting 6 Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 2/5/24. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:23-CV-162-DMB-JMV

LACHARLES WASHINGTON

DEFENDANT
ORDER

On August 21, 2023, the United States of America filed a complaint against LaCharles
Washington in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi seeking “to
recover treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act (‘FCA’), … and … money
for common law or equitable causes of action for payment by mistake and unjust enrichment based
upon [Washington’s] receipt of Paycheck Protection Program [(‘PPP’)] funds to which he was not
entitled.”

Doc. #1 at PageID 1.

The complaint alleges that Washington, through

misrepresentations, received PPP loan proceeds of $35,624.00 1 (for which the Small Business
Administration paid approximately $5,000.00 in processing fees to the financial institution
involved) and that, based on false statements, the financial institution involved was “reimbursed
by the SBA.” Id. at PageID 6–7.
On January 10, 2024, a “Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment” was filed in which
the parties represent that they “have agreed to resolve [this] litigation” and “to the entry of a
consent judgment that will be submitted separately.” Doc. #6 at PageID 19. Both the joint motion
and the proposed consent judgment submitted are signed by an Assistant United States Attorney
and by Washington who appears pro se. Id.

1
According to the complaint, Washington received a PPP loan in the amount of $17,812 on April 10, 2021, and
another PPP loan in the amount of $17,812 on April 27, 2021. Doc. #1 at PageID 6.

Generally, before entering a consent judgment, also called a consent decree, courts
must decide whether it represents a reasonable factual and legal determination
based on the facts of record, whether established by evidence, affidavit, or
stipulation. Courts must also ascertain that the settlement is fair and that it does not
violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence. In assessing the propriety of
giving judicial imprimatur to the consent decree, the court must also consider the
nature of the litigation and the purposes to be served by the decree.
Jones v. Gusman, 296 F.R.D. 416, 428–29 (E.D. La. 2013) (cleaned up).
The Court has reviewed the proposed consent judgment—which requires Washington to
pay $41,149.20 plus interest and a $402.00 filing fee—and finds that it represents a fair and
reasonable factual and legal determination based on the facts of record. The Court also concludes
that the proposed consent judgment does not violate the Constitution, statutes, or jurisprudence.
Finally, the proposed consent judgment is consistent with the nature of this litigation. Accordingly,
the “Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment” [6] is GRANTED. The proposed consent
judgment will be signed and entered by the Court.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of February, 2024.
/s/Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE