Kempner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:25-cv-06729
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kempner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Judge Gorenstein paused Chase’s response deadline while Judge Broderick considers arbitration.
The stay affects JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s deadline to respond to the complaint and pauses the court proceedings while Judge Broderick considers Chase’s planned motion to compel individual arbitration. The plaintiff consented to the stay.
What happened
Kempner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. concerns a dispute over the interest rate for a certificate of deposit account. Chase said the account agreement requires individual arbitration of the plaintiff’s claims and that the plaintiff did not opt out.
Chase asked to pause its deadline to respond to the complaint until the court decides its planned request to require arbitration. The plaintiff consented to the requested pause.
Judge Gorenstein granted the stay pending Judge Broderick’s decision on the planned arbitration motion. If that motion is denied, Chase must respond within 21 days; if it is granted, the case will be stayed while arbitration concludes.
The detailed version
- Kempner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank · No. 1:25-cv-06729
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Nov. 5, 2025
Background
The plaintiff’s case concerns a certificate of deposit account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and Chase entered into a Deposit Account Agreement and that Chase breached that agreement by failing to act in good faith when rolling over the certificate of deposit at a particular interest rate.
Chase’s request
Chase asked the court to stay, or pause, its November 20, 2025 deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Chase said it planned to file a motion to compel individual arbitration—that is, a request requiring the plaintiff to pursue the dispute in arbitration rather than in court—and to stay the court case while arbitration proceeded.
Chase relied on an arbitration provision in the Deposit Account Agreement. The provision states that disputes concerning a deposit account, related transactions, and related agreements must be resolved through binding arbitration when either party requests it, unless an exception applies. It also waives participation in class, representative, or consolidated proceedings. Chase stated that the agreement allowed customers to opt out and that it would show through declarations that the plaintiff did not opt out. Chase argued that the plaintiff’s claims fell within the provision’s scope. The plaintiff consented to the stay request.
Ruling
Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the application to stay Chase’s time to respond to the complaint pending Judge Broderick’s decision on the planned motion to compel arbitration. The order did not decide whether arbitration must occur. If the motion to compel arbitration is denied, Chase must respond to the complaint within 21 days after the denial. If the motion is granted, proceedings in the case will be stayed pending completion of the arbitration.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.