Seidler v. JPMorgan Chase N.A.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-01462
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Seidler v. JPMorgan Chase N.A., Judge Woods granted dismissal of four amended-complaint counts but allowed the plaintiffs to amend.
Leah Seidler and Leah Israel, Inc.’s amended-complaint claims in Counts III through VI were dismissed, while the plaintiffs were allowed to file a second amended complaint; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s dismissal motion was granted.
What happened
In Seidler v. JPMorgan Chase N.A., JPMorgan Chase asked the court to dismiss Counts III through VI of Leah Seidler and Leah Israel, Inc.’s amended complaint. A magistrate judge recommended granting that request, and no party objected.
The court found no clear error in the recommendation and adopted it. Counts III and IV—claims under New York General Business Law § 349 and for conversion—were dismissed for failing to state a claim. Counts V and VI—negligence and negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision—were dismissed because the plaintiffs had withdrawn them.
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted the motion to dismiss and allowed the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint within 14 days to address the identified problems. The court did not find that amendment would necessarily be futile as to Counts III and IV.
The detailed version
- Seidler v. JPMorgan Chase N.A. · No. 1:23-cv-01462
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 30, 2024
Background
Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s motion to dismiss Counts III, IV, V, and VI of the amended complaint be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally actionable claim.
The recommendation concluded that Count III, alleging a violation of New York General Business Law § 349, and Count IV, alleging conversion, failed to state claims. It also concluded that Count V, alleging negligence, and Count VI, alleging negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision, should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had withdrawn those claims.
Review of the Recommendation
No party submitted an objection within the required 14-day period. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none. It accepted and adopted the recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
For the reasons stated in the recommendation, the court granted the motion to dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed Counts III, IV, V, and VI. The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. It explained that the plaintiffs had previously amended without the benefit of a court ruling identifying the pleading problems and that the court did not conclude that amendment would necessarily be futile as to Counts III and IV.
The plaintiffs may file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the recommendation no later than 14 days after the order. The court noted that Counts V and VI had been voluntarily withdrawn and expected that they would not be included in any future amended complaint. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.