KPA Promotion & Awards, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:20-cv-03910
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In KPA Promotion & Awards v. JPMorgan Chase, Judge Buchwald granted the request to pause the case while a federal panel considered transferring related cases.
The stay affects the plaintiffs and Chase by pausing this case while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considers whether to transfer and consolidate related Paycheck Protection Program actions. The order also delays further proceedings, including Chase’s response to the complaint, under the parties’ requested arrangement.
What happened
KPA Promotion & Awards, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. concerns lawsuits about JPMorgan Chase’s processing of Paycheck Protection Program loans under the CARES Act. The parties asked the court to pause this case while a federal panel considered whether to transfer and combine related lawsuits for pretrial proceedings.
JPMorgan Chase and the plaintiffs agreed that waiting could avoid duplicative work, including responding to complaints and litigating similar issues in different courts. The parties said the delay would likely be short and would not unfairly harm them because the case was at an early stage.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the application and stayed the case. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the federal panel’s proposed transfer and consolidation of the related cases.
The detailed version
- KPA Promotion & Awards, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:20-cv-03910
- Naomi Buchwald
- June 19, 2020
Background
The case concerns claims related to JPMorgan Chase’s processing of Paycheck Protection Program loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The opinion states that twelve related Paycheck Protection Program actions were pending in a proposed multidistrict litigation proceeding. Multidistrict litigation is a process for transferring related cases to one federal district for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking transfer and consolidation with the other cases. A plaintiff in a separate action filed a competing motion. The two motions proposed different federal districts for the proceeding, and neither proposed the Southern District of New York. Chase opposed both motions, arguing that each case should remain in its original district, or alternatively proposing the District of Colorado or the Northern District of Texas.
Parties’ Joint Request
Although Chase opposed transferring the cases, it agreed with the plaintiffs that this case should be temporarily stayed while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered the proposed transfer and consolidation. The parties said a stay would avoid unnecessary responses to individual complaints and duplicative litigation if the panel transferred and consolidated the actions.
The request also stated that Chase would not yet have to respond to the complaint. If the case were not transferred, the parties agreed that Chase would respond within 30 days after notice of the panel’s ruling. Chase separately stated that JPMorgan Chase & Co. was not a proper defendant because, according to Chase, it did not participate in the Paycheck Protection Program or make related loans, and Chase reserved its rights concerning that defendant’s inclusion in the complaint.
Court’s Ruling
The court’s order states: “Application granted. Case stayed.” The court therefore granted the parties’ application to pause the proceedings while the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation considered the proposed transfer and consolidation. The order did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, decide whether the case should be transferred, or rule on Chase’s position concerning JPMorgan Chase & Co. as a defendant.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.