JPMorgan Chase on Thursday responded to President Donald Trump’s debanking lawsuit against the company and CEO Jamie Dimon by seeking to transfer the case from Florida state court to federal court. The bank contended that the president’s initial lawsuit improperly included Dimon, characterizing the inclusion as “fraudulent.” According to a notice from JPMorgan Chase lawyers, initially reported, Trump’s lawsuit relies on a statute that clearly exempts federally regulated bank executives when they are performing their official duties.
The lawsuit initiated by Trump pertains to Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, with the legal representatives contending that this statute does not extend to federally regulated bank officers. They contended that this implies Dimon was inappropriately, or “fraudulently,” incorporated into the lawsuit. Last month, Trump initiated legal action against JPMorgan Chase and Dimon, claiming that the bank unjustly terminated his status as a client in 2021 for political motivations. The lawsuit, originally submitted in a Florida state court, demands $5 billion in compensation. According to the filing, JPMorgan is classified as a citizen of Ohio for legal purposes. Given that none of the plaintiffs hold citizenship in Ohio, the lawsuit qualifies for consideration in federal court.
JPMorgan Chase contended that by incorporating Dimon, Trump’s legal team aimed to maintain the lawsuit within the jurisdiction of state court. The bank’s lawyers contended that, given Dimon’s “fraudulent” inclusion, the suit ought to be transferred to federal court, as Florida’s DUTPA provides exemptions for federally regulated bank executives performing their official duties. JPMorgan Chase refrained from providing any commentary. JPMorgan’s legal representatives countered Trump’s claims that the bank severed ties with him due to political motivations.
“Finally, Plaintiffs’ threadbare allegations do not allege sufficient facts to plead a claim,” the lawyers articulated. “Plaintiffs further fail to plead the basic facts necessary to establish their blacklist claim,” the lawyers articulated. “The meaning of this term as intended by the Plaintiffs remains ambiguous.” The lack of clarity surrounding the specifics of this blacklist is notable; there is no information provided regarding its creation date, the intended recipients of its circulation, or any additional details that would elucidate its implications.