Beyond The Horizon

JP Morgan's Memorandum In Law In Opposition To Jes Staley's Motion To Dismiss (Part 1) (7/7/24)

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.'s memorandum of law in opposition to James Edward Staley’s motion to dismiss addresses several key points:

Responsibility and Knowledge: JPMorgan argues that James Staley, as a senior executive, played a significant role in managing the relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They assert that Staley was aware, or should have been aware, of Epstein's illegal activities and failed to take appropriate action to address or report these issues.
Claims of Misconduct: The memorandum highlights specific allegations that Staley facilitated Epstein's criminal enterprise by maintaining and managing Epstein's accounts, even after red flags were raised. This includes allegations of willful blindness and failure to comply with legal and regulatory obligations.
Legal Arguments: JPMorgan contends that Staley's motion to dismiss lacks merit because the claims against him are well-supported by evidence and legal precedent. They argue that the allegations, if proven true, establish a clear basis for Staley's liability in connection with Epstein's activities.
Fiduciary Duties: The bank emphasizes that Staley breached his fiduciary duties by prioritizing the bank's financial interests over legal compliance and ethical standards. This breach of duty, JPMorgan argues, justifies the continuation of legal proceedings against him.
Impact on the Bank: JPMorgan also addresses the reputational and financial damage caused by Staley's alleged misconduct. They claim that his actions have led to significant legal and regulatory scrutiny, which has harmed the bank’s standing and operations.

The opposition memorandum seeks to ensure that Staley remains a party to the lawsuit, holding him accountable for his alleged role in facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.140.0.pdf (courtlistener.com)

Duration:: 15m
Broadcast on:: 07 Jul 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

an official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. Maybe you can save too. With Medicare's Extra Help program, my premium is zero and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp Paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Hi, I'm D'Alvet Quince. One way to help manage type 2 diabetes is to regularly exercise. My exercise program can help get you into a routine that works for you. Keep in mind, managing butt sugar also takes the right. Diet. Hi, I'm celebrity chef Franklin Becker. Ever since I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, I've adapted my cooking style without sacrificing flavor. If you want to learn more tips about diet and exercise, visit mytype2transformation.com. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to continue to set the table down in the U.S. VI as the lawsuit between the Epstein survivors and the U.S. VI government continues to cook. But to understand what's going on in that lawsuit, you have to understand what happened with JP Morgan and the U.S. VI. So, with that said, let's dive into the JP Morgan Chase Bank Memorandum of Law and opposition to third-party defendant James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss. Case number 22-CV-10-904-JSR The Preliminary Statement Plaintive's level serious allegations against JPMC's former employee, James Edward "Jest" Staley, with regard to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking venture, though alleges, among other things, that Staley knew without a doubt that Epstein was trafficking and abusing girls, spent time with young girls, whom he met through Epstein on several occasions, visited young girls at Epstein's apartments, observed Epstein sexually grabbed young women in front of them, and sexually assaulted her with force and aggression as part of the very same sex trafficking venture, for which, though, seeks to hold JPMC liable, though, docket, 36, at 115, 128, 226, and 227. Such behavior is not tolerated at JPMC, but until this lawsuit, JPMC did not know about this alleged misconduct by Staley. The USVI suggests that Staley participated in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, citing and reproducing numerous emails between Staley and Epstein. C-e-g-u-s-v-i docket 108, 52-63. In total, those complaint mentions Staley 97 times, while USVI's complaint mentions him 41 times. If these allegations are proven to be true, then Staley must be held accountable for his alleged misconduct, and any harm that conduct caused to victims and the company. It is perhaps surprising, then, that dough and USVI bring their misguided lawsuits not against Staley, but instead against Staley's former employer, JP Morgan Chase Bank, North America. plaintiff seeks to leverage common law principles of vicarious liability to argue that JPMC knew of, participated in, and benefited from Epstein's sex trafficking venture, acting through Staley, dough, FAC at 328. JPMC continues to dispute the veracity of plaintiff's allegations that JPMC may be held liable for alleged conduct clearly outside of Staley's scope of employment. But, if the court were to reject that notion, the very same principles of agency law plainly allow JPMC to see contribution and, identification from Staley, the agent who caused JPMC to incur derivative liability. The straightforward third-party complaint thus preserves JPMC's ability to do exactly what Rule 14 entitles it to do, hold a non-party, who is or who may be liable for all or part of the claim against JPMC responsible, Fedarsiv 14A1. Staley's effort to seek effective immunity from these claims, whether under the TVPA or as a result of JPMC's generic, idemonification of its officers and directors, should be rejected. Nothing about the TVPA's objective to ensure punishment of traffickers supports the idea that Congress impliedly preempted third parties who may be found negligent in providing services to sex traffickers from seeking to hold the direct perpetrators responsible. Even if their purposeful actions were hidden from detection, HR representative number 108 through 264-2, 2003 at 2, JPMC's bylaws only identify officers and directors for actions taken in good faith, and so they clearly do not require JPMC's identification of Staley's conduct here. Those bylaws are governed by Delaware law, which specifically empowers JPMC to pursue lawsuits against its officers and nowhere restricts the nature of the claims it's able to pursue in such a lawsuit against a former officer who has acted in bad faith. Finally, JPMC's third-party complaint contains more than sufficient allegations to support JPMC's breach of fiduciary duty and faithless servant claims. Those allegations establish that Staley repeatedly concealed his improper activities from JPMC such that his own illicit ends overrow the interests of his employer to foster bona fide business, especially when JPMC sought Staley's counsel with regards to retaining Epstein as a client. Staley's motion to dismiss should be denied. The background. Plaintives Jane Doe won in the United States Virgin Islands, Doe and the USVI respectively brought separate allegations and actions against JPMC knowingly benefited from a sex trafficking venture maintained by Jeffrey Epstein, for whom JPMC provided routine banking services until it severed its relationship with him in 2013. Doe and the putative class assert cause of action against JPMC for knowingly benefiting from sex trafficking under the Federal Sex Trafficking Victims Protection Act, TVPA, and obstructing enforcement of the TVPA as well as negligence under New York law. The USVI asserts causes of action alleging that JPMC participated in or knowingly benefited from sex trafficking under the TVPA and obstructed enforcement of the TVPA. As this court is recognized, Staley is a key figure in the allegations made in plaintiff and co-plaintives complaints. He and the facts relating to him will therefore be a prominent focus of the trial of the underlying case between plaintiff Jane Doe won co-plaintive the government of the United States Virgin Islands and JP Morgan. Doe docked at 82, ordered denying motion to sever at 2. It's alleged that JPMC knew about Epstein's sex trafficking allegations through Staley, Doe FAC, 200, 230, 231, and 239, and that Staley influenced JPMC's decisions regarding Epstein's accounts before Staley left JPMC in 2013. Following Doe's deposition, where she expanded, on her allegations concerning Staley's involvement with Epstein's misconduct and accused Staley of the horrific act of forcible sexual assault, JPMC then filed third-party complaints against Staley. Staley promised repeatedly to abide by JPMC's code of conduct under which he acknowledged the duty to act in JPMC's best interests, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to avoid any activities that would damage JPMC either financially or reputationally. JPMC complaint 17-20, yet according to Doe, Staley knew that Epstein was trafficking and abusing girls, personally observed Doe as a sex trafficking and abused victim, personally spent in time with young girls whom he met through Epstein on several occasions, personally visited young girls at Epstein's apartments, located at 301 E66 street, personally observed Epstein around young girls, and personally observed Epstein sexually grabbed young women in front of them. Citing Doe, FAC-115, 128, 226, and 227. Doe further alleges that Staley sexually assaulted her with force and aggression, adding that he had Epstein's permission to do what he wanted to her. ID, Citing Doe, FAC at 107. The USVI also alleged that specific communications between Staley and Epstein suggests that the USVI's words that Staley may have been involved in Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Moreover, plaintiffs allege that Staley promised to use his clout within JP Morgan to make Epstein untouchable, repeatedly thwarted JPMC's efforts to sever ties with Epstein, and played a role in convincing JPMC to maintain Epstein as a JPMC client. JPMC alleges that if plaintiffs allegations regarding Epstein and Staley's conduct are true, then Staley affirmatively concealed this highly relevant information, clearly in violation of JPMC's code of conduct from JPMC. Staley did not disclose this information to JPMC even when JPMC asked him to offer his views as to whether JPMC should retain Epstein as a client, putting his personal interest first and opposition to JPMC's interests. JPMC's third-party complaints against Staley assert claims of identification, contribution, breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the faithless servant doctrine. Argument 1, JPMC's third-party complaint contains well-pleated allegations. Staley contends that the identity and contribution claims should be dismissed, as an impermissible shotgun pleading, motion at 7-8, yet his own motions to dismiss belies his assertions that these counts are confusing or lack an adequate notice of the allegation that support claims against him. Indeed, Staley's motion to dismiss painstakingly articulates exactly the allegations he believes are insufficient to state the claims that have been brought against him. Itemification on both the negligence and the TVPA claims, and contribution on the negligence and TVPA claims, because the complaint makes clear which allegations of fact are intended to support which claims of relief. It's not an improper shotgun pleading, security and exchange commission versus see-through equity, LLC 2019, WL, 199, 8, 0, 2, 7 at 3, SDNY, April 26, 2019, quoting croons versus New York State Office of Mental Health, 18, F.SUPP, 3D, 193, 199, and DNY 2014. See also Digital Attack International F.Z.E. versus Alchemy Financial Inc., 2022, WL, 91, 296, 5 at 5, SDNY March 29, 2022. Rejecting requests for dismissal because the complaint is not confusing and it's not drafted in a manner that gives rise to an inference of bad faith. Staley appears to rely solely on the hyper-technical assertion that the complaint does not contain two identification counts and two contribution counts, one each for the TVPA and another two for the underlying negligence claims. Motion at 8, but Staley fails to articulate any other prejudice. In fact, he concedes that New York state law would provide the rule of decision for contribution and identification under the TVPA and urges the court to analyze the TVPA and state law identification and contribution claims together. ID at 12 and 7. The only authority Staley invokes is a parenthetical reference in a district court case to types of shotgun pleadings, including one that does not separate into a different count each cause of action or claim for relief. C. Sissy v. Zenucci, 2022, WL, 118, 3274 at 2, NDNY, April 21, 2022, quoting Wyland v. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, 792, F.3D, 1313, 1321, 11 circuit 2015. But Wyland did not establish a rule that any and every complaint that fails to include each cause of action in a separate count must be dismissed. Quite the contrary, the court explained that if the unifying characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they fail to one degree or another in one way or another to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. Wyland 792, F.3D at 1323. While several claims in Wyland fell within the definition of one of the types of shotgun pleadings, dismissal was unwarranted because whatever their faults, the counts were informative enough to permit the court to readily determine if the state, a claim upon which relief can be granted, ID at 1326. That is precisely the case here, JPMC relies on the very same allegations that Doe and USVI brought against JPMC in the first instance, and which the court found adequate to survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, despite Staley's formulaic argument, he voices no confusion whatsoever regarding the claims that are brought against them, nor did he seek a more definite statement under Fedarsiv P-12V. The appropriate remedy for an actual shotgun pleading. All right, we're going to wrap up this episode here, and in the next episode, we're going to pick up with Section 2, identification, and contribution claims are permissible under the TVPA. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box. An official message from Medicare. A new law is helping me save more money on prescription drug costs. You may be able to save, too. With Medicare's Extra Help Program, my premium is zero, and my out-of-pocket costs are low. Who should apply? Single people making less than $23,000 a year, or married couples who make less than $31,000 a year. Even if you don't think you qualify, it pays to find out. Go to ssa.gov/extrahelp paid for by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This summer, saddle up with the only sports book where you can bet on horse racing, FanDuel. Right now, new customers can get a no-sweat first bet up to $500. Just download the app or go to fanduel.com/horses to score your no-sweat bet up to $500. 21 Plus and President Colorado offer valid on first real money wager of $5 or more. For more information on how to fight empty racing account required, bonus issued and non-withdrawable racing site credit that expire seven days after issuance. Max Refund, $500. Restrictions apply. See terms at racing.fanduel.com, gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER.