J&K Productions, LLC v. Small Business Administration, Civil Action No. 2021-3227

Background

J&K Productions, d/b/a Circus Kirkus, sued the SBA and its Administrator on Dec. 9, 2021, alleging the SBA arbitrarily and capriciously denied its Shuttered Venue Operators Grant (SVOG) application.
The plaintiff filed a notice asserting this case was related to two earlier SVOG suits (Little Circus that Could, LLC and Rhizome Productions, Inc.).
Defendants opposed related-case treatment under Local Civil Rule 40.5; the Court ordered a reply and then reviewed relatedness.
Local Rule 40.5(a)(3) permits related-case designation only where earlier case is pending and cases (i) relate to common property, (ii) involve common issues of fact, (iii) grow out of same event/transaction, or (iv) involve same patent.
The Court found the cases each involve separate administrative records and distinct SBA denial decisions, rejected that a congressional appropriation is “common property” for relatedness, and emphasized the narrow scope of the related-case exception.
Conclusion: the Court held the cases are not related and ordered the Clerk to return this case for random reassignment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do the cases involve common issues of fact under Local Rule 40.5(a)(3)?	All three suits raise the same factual issue: SBA arbitrarily denied SVOG applications.	Relatedness requires substantial factual overlap; each plaintiff submitted separate applications and administrative records.	Not related: factual overlap is insufficient; each case relies on a distinct administrative record.
Do the cases grow out of the same event or transaction?	All stem from the SVOG program and Congress’s appropriation.	Each claim challenges a distinct final agency action (individual denials), not a single event.	Not the same transaction: separate denial decisions are distinct events.
Do the cases relate to common property?	They concern the SBA’s administration of Congress’s $16.25 billion SVOG appropriation (common property).	An appropriation is not the sort of ‘‘property’’ contemplated; treating appropriations as common property would swallow random assignment.	Not related: congressional appropriation is not the kind of common property for Rule 40.5; exception not meant to consolidate all appropriation-related suits.
May related-case treatment be used to centralize allocation risks (e.g., fund exhaustion)?	A single judge should manage cases because SBA might exhaust the appropriation before all claims are decided.	Related-case rule is a narrow tool for judicial economy, not to empower one judge to allocate scarce funds; APA remedies do not require allocation by courts.	Denied: court will not centralize allocation; remedy under APA is remand, not judicial allocation of appropriated funds.

Key Cases Cited

Tripp v. Exec. Office of President, 196 F.R.D. 201 (D.D.C. 2000) (general rule favoring random assignment and rationale for related-case exception)