Nypl v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al

Filing 770

ORDER: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. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 11/4/2021) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
JOHN NYPL, et al.,
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-against:
:
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
------------------------------------------------------------- X

15 Civ. 9300 (LGS)
ORDER

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 ¶¶ 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

2