Jalalian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- 3:25-cv-01411
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Jalalian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the court struck one filing, denied two motions, and denied reconsideration without prejudice.
Armen Jalalian, whose late filing was struck, whose docket-correction motion was denied as moot, and whose reconsideration motion was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ previously granted motions to dismiss were not changed by this order.
What happened
In Jalalian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Armen Jalalian submitted a filing that appeared to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss, but the court received it after the deadline. The court had already granted those motions without considering the late filing.
The court struck the late filing. It denied Jalalian’s request to correct the docket as moot because the docket already showed the filing date of June 5, 2025. It also denied his request to reconsider and vacate the dismissal order without prejudice because he had not first obtained permission to seek reconsideration.
The court advised Jalalian to follow the district’s local rules and provided information for people representing themselves. The opinion does not clearly identify the signing judge by name; the ruling was issued by the court.
The detailed version
- Jalalian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 3:25-cv-01411
- June 11, 2025
Background
Armen Jalalian filed three documents: a response concerning the alleged nonreceipt of funds and an incorrect SWIFT code, a motion to correct the clerk’s record and docket, and a motion for reconsideration of the order granting defendants’ motions to dismiss and to vacate that order.
The court said the response appeared to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss. Those motions had been filed on May 2, 2025, and the court had ruled on them on May 29, 2025. Under Civil Local Rule 7-3, Jalalian’s opposition was due 14 days after the motions were filed. The court did not receive the response by that deadline and did not consider it when granting the motions to dismiss. The court stated that it had granted the motions solely because Jalalian failed to allege defendant Marianne Lake’s citizenship, and therefore did not consider defendants’ arguments about the SWIFT code.
Rulings
The court struck the response filed at ECF No. 37 because it was late and appeared to be an opposition to the already-decided motions to dismiss.
The court denied as moot the motion to correct the docket at ECF No. 38. The docket already showed that the response was filed on June 5, 2025. The court explained that documents manually filed at the clerk’s office or sent by mail may not immediately appear while the clerk’s office processes them, although the docket will show the filing date.
The court denied without prejudice the motion for reconsideration at ECF No. 39. Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires a party to obtain the court’s permission before filing such a motion, and Jalalian had not requested or obtained that permission.
Additional guidance
The court directed Jalalian to comply with the Civil Local Rules and provided information about the district’s handbook and Legal Help Center for people representing themselves. The opinion also noted that Jalalian appeared to have removed a different case to the Bankruptcy Court but had not appeared to remove this case. The opinion text does not clearly identify the signing judge by name.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.