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

Background

Thomas Rimini, an attorney representing himself, sued his former employer, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPMC), and its affiliates J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC (JPMS), and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMCB). He alleged that the defendants told HSBC and other prospective employers that he was “ineligible for reemployment.”

Earlier in the case, the court dismissed Rimini’s federal claims and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice because he had not adequately pleaded a basis for federal jurisdiction. The court gave him one opportunity to amend the state-law claims, including by properly alleging diversity jurisdiction and adding factual support. After an earlier amended complaint was struck for failing to follow those requirements, Rimini filed the Second Amended Complaint at issue here.

The Second Amended Complaint asserted three New York-law claims: breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations, and libel. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Rimini did not file a full opposition by the deadline but later stated that he opposed the motion.

Jurisdiction

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Rimini’s allegations were technically insufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. Rimini later identified Massachusetts as his domicile, and the defendants’ disclosure established that JPMC and JPMS were citizens of Delaware and New York and that JPMCB was a citizen of Ohio. The court treated the pleadings as amended to reflect those facts and found complete diversity.

The court also found that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Rimini alleged more than $75,000 in financial harm and supported that allegation with claims of sustained unemployment outside his industry path. The defendants did not challenge that amount. The court therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and proceeded to the dismissal motion.

Breach of Contract

Rimini claimed that the defendants breached a 2008 settlement agreement by telling HSBC and others that he was ineligible for reemployment. The agreement required JPMC to respond to inquiries from potential future employers by identifying only Rimini’s positions and employment dates, consistent with JPMC’s policies.

The court held that Rimini could not maintain a contract claim against JPMS or JPMCB because neither entity was a party to the settlement agreement. As to JPMC, the court held that Rimini had not plausibly alleged a breach because he did not identify which defendant made the statement. The allegation that “Defendants” made it could have referred to JPMS or JPMCB, which were not parties to the agreement, as well as to JPMC. The court also stated that the agreement did not govern statements made in court filings.

Tortious Interference

Rimini alleged that the statement about his reemployment status interfered with his business prospects. Under New York law, this claim requires, among other things, conduct undertaken for a wrongful purpose or through dishonest, unfair, or improper means.

The court held that Rimini did not allege that element. It explained that a negative job reference or an employer’s view that a person is not qualified generally does not constitute interference through wrongful means. The court concluded that the alleged statement did not amount to the serious wrongdoing required for this claim.

Libel

Rimini alleged that statements to HSBC and prospective employers were libelous. The court held that he did not allege that the statements were written, which is required for a libel claim rather than a claim based on spoken statements. The court also held that Rimini did not adequately explain why the statement was false, relying only on conclusory assertions that it was false and untrue.

The court further concluded that the statement was at least substantially true under the settlement agreement. That agreement permanently severed Rimini’s employment relationship with JPMC and its affiliates and barred him from seeking reemployment with them. Under New York law, substantial truth defeats a civil defamation claim.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because Rimini had already received multiple opportunities to correct his pleading and had not cured its deficiencies. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, dismissed Rimini’s remaining state-law claims with prejudice and without leave to amend, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the defendants’ favor, and closed the case.