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

Background

Thomas Rimini alleges that J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Securities, LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, and Bear Stearns—identified in the opinion as his prior employers—retaliated against him by providing negative references after he reported wrongdoing during his employment. The opinion addresses several motions filed by Rimini. It does not decide the underlying retaliation claims.

Rulings on the Motions

- Certification of the record for appeal: Rimini asked the court to certify the record to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Because the appeal pending when he filed the motion had since been dismissed, the court denied the request as moot. - Recusal: Rimini asked Judge Cronan to recuse himself from this case and other cases involving the parties. The court denied the request because Rimini identified no facts showing prejudice, a conflict of interest, an outside source of bias, or the extreme favoritism or antagonism that would make a fair judgment impossible. The court explained that disagreement with prior rulings ordinarily is not a basis for recusal. - Subpoena or stay: Rimini asked the court to issue a subpoena to the Department of Labor concerning his Sarbanes-Oxley complaints or, alternatively, to pause the case while he sought the documents through the Freedom of Information Act. The court denied this request without prejudice. It explained that, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court must assume the complaint’s factual allegations are true, so evidence obtained through a subpoena was not yet relevant. The court stated that discovery, including subpoenas, could be used if the case proceeded to discovery. - Identification of Bear Stearns’s counsel: Rimini asked counsel for the other defendants to identify the attorney representing Bear Stearns, which had not entered an appearance. The court understood that Rimini appeared to seek this information because he wanted to pursue a default judgment against Bear Stearns. The court denied the request without prejudice because default proceedings generally would not be considered before resolving the liability of defendants who had appeared, and the requested information was not relevant at that stage. - Amendment of the complaint: Rimini sought permission to add allegations about adverse actions that occurred after he filed the original complaint. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the allegations were false and not legally actionable. The court granted Rimini leave to file an amended complaint by August 18, 2023. It relied on the federal rules’ liberal policy favoring amendments, the early stage of the case, and the limited prejudice expected because discovery had not begun. The court stated that arguments about whether the new allegations were legally sufficient would be better addressed in a motion to dismiss rather than in opposition to amendment.

Disposition

The court denied Rimini’s motions for a subpoena or stay, for a statement identifying Bear Stearns’s counsel, for recusal, and for certification of the appellate record. The denial of the subpoena-or-stay request and the counsel-identification request was without prejudice; the certification request was denied as moot. The court granted Rimini’s request for leave to amend and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Docket Numbers 15, 34, 37, 40, and 46.