Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-07209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase, Judge Cronan ordered responses to a motion seeking a stay or dismissal without prejudice for jurisdictional reasons.
Thomas Rimini and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; the order required the parties to state whether they would oppose the motion or agree to dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
In Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Thomas Rimini, representing himself, asked the court to pause the case or dismiss it without prejudice. He said the Department of Labor was investigating the matter under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction until administrative remedies were completed.
The court did not decide whether to stay or dismiss the case. Instead, the order required the parties to file a letter by January 26, 2022, stating whether they intended to file a brief opposing the motion or were willing to agree to dismissal without prejudice.
Judge John P. Cronan issued the order. The text provided does not state that the motion was granted, denied, or dismissed.
The detailed version
- Rimini v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. · No. 1:21-cv-07209
- John Cronan
- Jan. 20, 2022
Background
Thomas Rimini filed a motion asking the court either to stay the case while the Department of Labor investigated it or to dismiss the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rimini stated that he had been notified by telephone that the Department of Labor was investigating the matter. He argued that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act required the Department of Labor to review the full record and that federal courts lacked jurisdiction over Sarbanes-Oxley matters until administrative remedies were exhausted. Rimini cited a Second Circuit decision in support of that argument and stated that he was filing the same motion in the Court of Appeals.
Court’s Action
The order did not resolve the requested stay or dismissal. It required the parties to file a letter by January 26, 2022, indicating whether they intended to file a brief opposing the motion or were willing to stipulate to dismissal of the case without prejudice.
Disposition
The opinion text does not state that the motion was granted, denied, or that the case was dismissed. Judge John P. Cronan’s order instead directed the parties to state their positions by the specified deadline.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.