Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Substantive rulingFiled July 16, 2025

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nowak

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:23-cv-06834
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Summary JudgmentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nowak, Judge Oetken granted JPMorgan’s summary-judgment motion, denied amended-counterclaim filing, and closed the case.

Who this affects

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Martin Piotr Nowak, the other defendants, and any party seeking to appeal without paying the filing fee.

What happened

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. sued Martin Piotr Nowak and other defendants in the Southern District of New York. The provided judgment does not describe the underlying claims or dispute.

JPMorgan moved for summary judgment. A defendant moved for permission to file amended counterclaims.

The court granted JPMorgan’s motion for summary judgment, denied the motion to file amended counterclaims, and entered judgment for JPMorgan, closing the case. Judge James Oetken also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nowak · No. 1:23-cv-06834
Judge
James Oetken
Date
July 16, 2025

Rulings

The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s July 15, 2025 Opinion and Order:

- Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion for summary judgment was granted. - A defendant’s motion for leave to file amended counterclaims was denied. - Judgment was entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. - The case was closed.

Appeal and filing-fee ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

Scope of the provided text

This text is the judgment and refers to a separate July 15 Opinion and Order. It does not explain the underlying claims, the reasons for granting summary judgment, or the proposed amended counterclaims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.