EpsteinProject.org

Court records

042_18

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

      Case 1:23-cv-03903-JSR   Document 42   Filed 01/12/24   Page 1 of 16


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

 CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES &
 SANITATION EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT                      23-cv-03903 (JSR)
 TRUST and OPERATING ENGINEERS
 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND                            OPINION AND ORDER
 MISCELLANEOUS PENSION FUND

            Plaintiffs,

      -v-

 JAMES DIMON, STEPHEN B. BURKE,
 TODD A. COMBS, JAMES S. CROWN,
 TIMOTHY P. FLYNN, MELLODY HOBSON,
 JOHN W. KESSLER, PHEBE N.
 NOVAKOVIC, and JAMES E. STALEY,

            Defendants,

      and

 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,

            Nominal Defendant.


JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.:

     This is a derivative action brought by shareholders of JPMorgan

Chase & Co. (“JPMorgan”) against various officers and directors of

JPMorgan. The amended complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary

duty and unjust enrichment, based upon allegations that the defendants

caused JPMorgan to retain Jeffrey Epstein as a client of the bank long

after defendants knew -- or should have known -- that Epstein was

using the bank’s financial services to facilitate Epstein’s criminal

sex trafficking and exploitation of women and underaged girls. JPMorgan

recently entered into two court-approved settlements concerning this

                                     1
       Case 1:23-cv-03903-JSR    Document 42   Filed 01/12/24    Page 2 of 16


activity --one with a class of Epstein victims and another with the

Government of the United States Virgin Islands –- in which JPMorgan

has agreed to pay a total of $365 million. Plaintiffs seek to hold the

defendants liable for causing this and other harms to the company.

      On July 6, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint

in its entirety, arguing both that plaintiffs’ amended complaint fails

to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

and that plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege that th

[…]

Open in the archive