Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Background

Thomas Rimini, an attorney proceeding without a lawyer, sued J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. He alleged that the defendants interfered with his efforts to obtain employment at HSBC by providing negative employment references, making false statements, and informing HSBC that he was not eligible for reemployment. His claims included retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, due process violations, breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith, defamation, slander, and tortious interference with business relations.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. They also requested an injunction requiring Rimini to obtain permission before filing further actions or documents against them.

Sarbanes-Oxley Claim

The court held that Sarbanes-Oxley requires a whistleblower to first present each separate claim to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and follow the statute’s administrative-review procedures. The court found that Rimini had not plausibly alleged that the claims in this case were the same claims he presented to the agency. The court therefore dismissed the Sarbanes-Oxley claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court did not allow Rimini to amend the complaint to replead Sarbanes-Oxley jurisdictional allegations. It noted that other courts, including this court, had previously found that he failed to satisfy the statute’s exhaustion requirements. The court stated that the dismissal without prejudice did not prevent him from bringing a new action if he could comply with the filing injunction and the statute’s requirements.

Dodd-Frank and Due Process Claims

The court dismissed Rimini’s Dodd-Frank retaliation claim with prejudice for failure to state a claim. A Dodd-Frank retaliation claim requires allegations of protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between them. The court found that Rimini did not allege facts showing that he provided information to the Securities and Exchange Commission, participated in a covered investigation or proceeding, or otherwise engaged in activity protected by Dodd-Frank. It also found no factual allegations showing that the defendants acted because of protected activity.

The court also dismissed Rimini’s due-process claim with prejudice. The pleadings did not explain what due-process right was violated, what procedural violation occurred, or how the defendants could be held responsible. To the extent the claim was based on the Constitution, the court found that Rimini sued private entities and did not allege facts providing a basis to treat them as state actors.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

Rimini’s state-law claims were for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith, defamation, slander, and tortious interference with business relations. The court found that the pleadings did not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction. They did not sufficiently allege Rimini’s citizenship, the relevant citizenship information for the defendants, or whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Because the federal claims were dismissed and the court lacked an independent basis for jurisdiction over the state-law claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. It dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice and did not reach their merits.

The court granted Rimini one opportunity to amend. Any amended complaint must be a single, fully integrated pleading. The amendment may address diversity jurisdiction and, if Rimini chooses, the substantive challenges to the state-law claims. It may not replead the federal claims, add new claims, or add allegations concerning events outside those described in the existing pleadings. The court ordered that the amendment be filed within thirty days of the opinion and order.

Filing Injunction

The court granted the defendants’ request for a filing injunction in part by imposing a narrower restriction than the defendants sought. It found that Rimini had repeatedly pursued whistleblower-retaliation claims against the defendants in courts and administrative proceedings, that those claims had repeatedly been rejected, and that his filings had burdened the defendants and adjudicative bodies.

Under the injunction, Rimini may not bring another action in the Southern District of New York or before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration against any defendant in this case seeking relief for alleged violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley or Dodd-Frank whistleblower-protection provisions without first obtaining permission from the tribunal where he seeks to proceed. To request permission, he must submit the proposed complaint, this opinion and order, and a motion titled “Request For Leave to File Complaint Pursuant to Filing Injunction.” The motion must describe the proposed claim, list his prior related actions and complaints against the defendants, and explain why the proposed claim is adequately pleaded and satisfies applicable jurisdictional requirements.

The action may not proceed unless the relevant tribunal grants permission. The court warned that noncompliance could lead to dismissal, sanctions, or a contempt finding. The court did not impose the defendants’ requested broader restriction on all future actions or filings.