Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 4, 2021·No. 1:15-cv-09300·Unknown

Opinion

USONUITTEHDE RSTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROIFC TN ECWOU YROTR K --------------------------------------------------------------X : JOHN NYPL, et al., : Plaintiffs, : : 15 Civ. 9300 (LGS) -against- : : ORDER JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., : Defendants. : ------------------------------------------------------------- X LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, courts have an independent duty to assess subject-matter jurisdiction. SPV OSUS, Ltd. v. UBS AG, 882 F.3d 333, 347 (2d Cir. 2018); WHEREAS, “[t]he objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation.” In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco P’ship, 788 F.3d 98, 101 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); WHEREAS, “Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC, 963 F3d 206, 211 (2d Cir. 2020); WHEREAS, “[t]he standing doctrine, which emerges from Article III, is designed ‘to ensure that federal courts do not exceed their authority as it has been traditionally understood.’” Id. (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)); WHEREAS, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim. Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 137 S Ct. 1645, 1650 (2017); WHEREAS, Defendants provided evidence that Plaintiff Nypl lacks Article III standing. (Dkt. No. 726 at 29). Plaintiffs did not refute this evidence. (Dkt. No. 738 at 12-13); WHEREAS, Plaintiff Nypl is the sole Plaintiff in this action asserting a claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. (Dkt. No. 186 at 15-16; Dkt. No. 190 fj 98-100). It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a letter, not to exceed five pages, by November 12, 2021, explaining why the California Unfair Competition Law claim should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file a letter response, not to exceed five pages, by November 19, 2021. Dated: November 4, 2021 New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. (Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Touch Concepts, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership
788 F.3d 98 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
578 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court, 2016)
SM Kids, LLC v. Google LLC
963 F.3d 206 (Second Circuit, 2020)
SPV Osus Ltd. v. UBS AG
882 F.3d 333 (Second Circuit, 2018)