JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. VTB Bank, P.J.S.C.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In JPMorgan Chase Bank v. VTB Bank, Judge Schofield granted discontinuance, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied the injunction motion as moot.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. may seek to restore the action, while VTB Bank remains subject to the existing contempt order and $500,000 fine unless the court modifies them.
What happened
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. VTB Bank, P.J.S.C. began after JPMorgan asked to discontinue the action, saying it had been coerced by a Russian court’s permanent order requiring it to do so. VTB Bank did not oppose ending the case.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning JPMorgan may ask to restore it to the court’s calendar at any time. The court also denied VTB Bank’s pending motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction as moot, while allowing VTB Bank to renew that motion.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ruled that the prior civil-contempt order and the $500,000 fine remained in effect unless changed by a later court order. The court said it retained power to impose further sanctions and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. VTB Bank, P.J.S.C. · No. 1:24-cv-02924
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 15, 2024
Background
JPMorgan filed a letter seeking a conference about an anticipated motion to discontinue the action. JPMorgan represented that it was coerced into seeking discontinuance because VTB Bank obtained a permanent anti-suit injunction from a Russian court ordering JPMorgan to discontinue this action. VTB Bank responded that it did not oppose discontinuance.
Rulings
The court granted JPMorgan’s unopposed motion to discontinue the action and dismissed the action without prejudice. The order states that JPMorgan may, in its sole discretion, file an application or motion to restore the action to the court’s calendar at any time.
The court denied VTB Bank’s pending motion to dissolve the court’s preliminary injunction as moot without prejudice to renewal. “Moot” means the court viewed that motion as no longer presenting a live issue at that point; the order expressly allowed renewal.
Continuing Orders and Case Status
The court stated that the entirety of its July 29, 2024, order finding VTB Bank in civil contempt for violating the April 26, 2024, preliminary injunction, and the entirety of its August 6, 2024, order imposing a $500,000 fine under the July 29 order, remained in effect after discontinuance unless modified by court order. The court warned that failure to comply could result in further sanctions and stated that it retained power to impose sanctions after the action was discontinued. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.