Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 14, 2024

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

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:22-cv-07768
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Judge Cronan ordered briefing on whether the court could hear Rimini’s Sarbanes-Oxley claim.

Who this affects

Thomas Rimini and the defendants, whose positions on the court’s authority to hear the Sarbanes-Oxley claim were ordered for briefing.

What happened

Thomas Rimini sued J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and other defendants under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, seeking to move his Department of Labor case to federal court. The opinion states that he filed this lawsuit on September 9, 2022.

The court explained that federal review is available after 180 days without a final Department of Labor decision. If the Department issues a timely final decision, the law instead directs the plaintiff to seek review in a federal appeals court within 60 days. The administrative docket showed that Rimini’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice on September 8, 2022, before he filed this lawsuit.

Judge John P. Cronan did not decide whether the claim satisfies those requirements. He ordered both sides to file simultaneous letter briefs by September 20, 2024, addressing whether the court has jurisdiction and whether the exhaustion requirement applies to alleged retaliation occurring after September 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:22-cv-07768
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Sept. 14, 2024

Background

Thomas Rimini filed this lawsuit on September 9, 2022. His complaint asserted a claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and sought to move Department of Labor administrative case 2022-SOX-00018 to the federal district court.

Jurisdictional framework

The court explained that Sarbanes-Oxley’s jurisdictional “kick-out” provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(1)(B), permits a plaintiff to bring a new action in federal district court after 180 days have passed without a final decision by the Secretary of Labor on the administrative complaint. If the Secretary issues a timely final decision within that period, the plaintiff’s recourse is to seek judicial review in the appropriate federal court of appeals within 60 days.

The public administrative docket showed that the case was docketed on March 18, 2022, and that a notice of docketing was filed on April 26, 2022. It also showed that Judge Calianos entered an order on September 8, 2022, dismissing Rimini’s complaint with prejudice and setting a deadline for removal to federal district court. Rimini filed this lawsuit the next day.

Court’s action

The court observed that Rimini appeared to have filed this action less than 180 days after filing his administrative complaint and only after a final decision had been entered. The court therefore ordered the parties to file simultaneous letter briefs by September 20, 2024, stating their positions on whether the Sarbanes-Oxley claim satisfies the provision’s jurisdictional requirements. The parties must also address whether the statute’s exhaustion requirement was satisfied for alleged retaliation occurring after September 2022, as pleaded in Rimini’s amended complaint.

The opinion orders briefing and does not decide whether the court has jurisdiction or whether the exhaustion requirement was satisfied.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.