Corporate Counsel Daily, JPMorgan seeks dismissal of Trump suit over alleged blacklist, (Oct 19, 2026)

By Suzanne Cosgrove

The bank says the corporate plaintiffs sued almost three years after their contractual deadlines expired.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and James Dimon asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss with prejudice President Donald Trump and nine entities’ claims arising from alleged politically motivated account closures and an alleged bank blacklist. Their October 13 memorandum says the four-count complaint fails under a prior Florida court ruling, the parties’ contracts, limitations periods, and trade libel pleading requirements. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and deny the underlying political-closure and blacklist allegations (Trump v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. No. 1:26-cv-08731-VSB-SLC (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 13, 2026)).

According to JPMorgan’s filing, the plaintiffs allege that the bank closed accounts in 2021 for political reasons and placed their names on an unspecified blacklist that caused other banks to avoid them. The memorandum’s introduction says plaintiffs seek “more than $5 billion.” The complaint asserts trade libel against JPMorgan; a Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act claim against Dimon; declaratory relief; and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The memorandum notes that a Southern District of Florida judge denied remand and transferred the case to New York on Sept. 30, 2026. According to JPMorgan, that judge held that Dimon was exempt from liability under the Florida statute because federal banking law regulates him, that plaintiffs could not establish the claim against him, and that he was fraudulently joined.

Contract claims. For the corporate plaintiffs, JPMorgan says the account agreements required account-related claims within two years. Because the accounts allegedly closed on April 19, 2021, and plaintiffs filed suit on Jan. 22, 2026, the bank says those plaintiffs sued almost three years after the contractual period expired. JPMorgan acknowledges that Trump’s account terms did not include the two-year limit.

JPMorgan argues that all plaintiffs’ implied covenant claims fail on the merits because New York and Ohio law do not allow an implied covenant to negate an express contract right. The bank says the agreement allowed it to close the accounts at will—sometimes for any reason with notice and sometimes without notice—so political discrimination allegations cannot convert authorized conduct into a contract breach.

The bank says the declaratory judgment count fails with the underlying contract terms. It also argues there is no live prospective controversy because the accounts have been closed for years and plaintiffs do not seek reopening or any other future account relief.

Trade libel. JPMorgan argued that trade libel is untimely under one-year limitations periods in New York and Ohio. The complaint alleges that, because of the purported “blacklisting,” “Plaintiffs have suffered significantly limited access to wealth management products, business banking, and other services for years.” The plaintiffs thus allege that any “blacklisting” necessarily occurred more than one year ago, leaving their trade libel claim barred under the one-year limitations period.

Further, to state a claim for trade libel under New York law, JPMorgan states, a plaintiff must adequately plead: “(1) falsity of the statement, (2) publication to a third person, (3) malice (express or implied), and (4) proven special damages,” (citing Angio-Med. Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 720 F. Supp. 269, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 1989)). In addition, “trade libel is based on statements confined to denigrating the quality of a business’ services or products,” while the alleged blacklist instead concerns their ability to obtain services from other banks.

For the eight plaintiffs governed by New York law, JPMorgan says the complaint does not plead special damages with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(g), and that contractual waivers independently bar such damages. It also contends Trump and the entities are public figures but have alleged only a conclusory assertion of intentional and malicious conduct, not knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth.

JPMorgan asked the court to deny leave to amend as futile, saying the defects arise from prior rulings, statutes, and contract terms rather than curable pleading gaps. It seeks dismissal of the entire complaint with prejudice.

The Case No. 1:26-cv-08731-VSB-SLC.

Judge: Broderick, V.

Attorneys: Alejandro Brito (Brito, PLLC) for Donald J. Trump. Derek Eduardo Leon (Leon Cosgrove, LLC) for JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Companies: JPMorgan Chase & Co.

MainStory: TopStory BankingOperations FinancialIntermediaries Loans GCNNews NewYorkNews