Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / JP Morgan And Their Unredacted Opposition To Jes Staley Dismissing The Lawsuit (Part 1) (9/12/26)

Transcript

JP Morgan And Their Unredacted Opposition To Jes Staley Dismissing The Lawsuit (Part 1) (9/12/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles.
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: In this episode, we're going to continue to set the
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: table down in the USVI as the lawsuit between the
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Epstein survivors and the USVI government continues to cook. But
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: to understand what's going on in that lawsuit, you have
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: to understand what happened with JP Morgan and the USVI.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: So with that said, let's dive into the JP Morgan
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: Chase Bank Memorandum of Law in opposition to third-party defendant
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: James Edward Staley's motion to dismiss. Case number 22-CV-10-904-JSR. The
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: preliminary statement. Plaintiffs level serious allegations against JPMC's former employee,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: James Edward Jeff Staley, with regard to Jeffrey Epstein's sex
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: trafficking venture, though alleges, among other things, that Staley knew
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: without a doubt that Epstein was trafficking and abusing girls,
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: spent time with young girls, whom he met through Epstein
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: on several occasions, visited young girls at Epstein's apartments, observed
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: Epstein sexually grab young women in front of him, and
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: sexually assaulted her with force and aggression as part of
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: the very same-sex trafficking venture for which Doe seeks to
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: hold JPMC liable. Doe Docket, 36, at 115, 128, 226,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: and 227. Such behavior is not tolerated at JPMC, but
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: until this lawsuit, JPMC did not know about this alleged
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: misconduct by Staley. The USVI suggests that Staley participated in
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, citing and reproducing numerous emails between
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: Staley and Epstein. In total, Doe's complaint mentions Staley 97 times,
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: while USVI's complaint mentions him 41 times. If these allegations
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: are proven to be true, then Staley must be held
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: accountable for his alleged misconduct and any harm that conduct
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: caused to victims and the company. It is perhaps surprising, then,
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: that Doe and USVI bring their misguided lawsuits not against Staley,
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: but instead against Staley's former employer, JPMorgan Chase Bank North America.
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: Plaintiff seeks to leverage common law principles of vicarious liability
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: to argue that JPMC knew of, participated in, and benefited
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: from Epstein's sex trafficking venture, acting through Staley, though FAC
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: at 328. JPMC continues to dispute the veracity of plaintiff's
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: allegations that JPMC may be held liable for alleged conduct
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: clearly outside of Staley's scope of employment. But if the
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: court were to reject that notion, the very same principles
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: of agency law plainly allow JPMC to seek contribution and
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: identification from Staley the agent who caused JPMC to incur
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: derivative liability. The straightforward third-party complaint thus preserves JPMC's ability
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: to do exactly what Rule 14 entitles it to do,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: hold a non-party who is or who may be liable
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: for all or part of the claim against JPMC responsible.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: Staley's effort to seek effective immunity from these claims, whether
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: under the TVPA or as a result of JPMC's generic
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: identification of its officers and directors should be rejected. Nothing
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: about the TVPA's objective to ensure punishment of traffickers supports
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: the idea that Congress impliedly preempted third parties who may
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: be found negligent in providing services to sex traffickers from
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: seeking to hold the direct perpetrators responsible, even if their
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: purposeful actions were hidden from detection. H.R. Rep. No. 108-264-2003-2
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: JPMC's bylaws only identify officers and directors for actions taken
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: in good faith, and so they clearly do not require
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: JPMC's identification of Staley's conduct here. Those bylaws are governed
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: by Delaware law, which specifically empowers JPMC to pursue lawsuits
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: against its officers, and nowhere restricts the nature of the
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: claims it's able to pursue in such a lawsuit against
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: a former officer who has acted in bad faith. Finally,
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: JPMC's third-party complaint contains more than sufficient allegations to support
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: JPMC's breach of fiduciary duty and faithless servant claims. Those
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: allegations establish that Staley repeatedly concealed his improper activities from JPMC,
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: such that his own illicit ends overrode the interests of
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: his employer to foster bona fide business, especially when JPMC
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: sought Staley's counsel with regards to retaining Epstein as a client.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: Staley's motion to dismiss should be denied. The Background Plaintiffs
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe One and the United States Virgin Islands, Doe
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: and the USVI respectively, brought separate allegations and actions against JPMC,
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: knowingly benefited from a sex trafficking venture maintained by Jeffrey Epstein,
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: for whom JPMC provided routine banking services until it severed
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: its relationship with him in 2013. Doe and the putative
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: class assert cause of action against JPMC for knowingly benefiting
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: from sex trafficking under the Federal Sex Trafficking Victims Protection Act, TVPA,
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: and obstructing enforcement of the TVPA, as well as negligence
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: under New York law. The USVI asserts causes of action
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: alleging that JPMC participated in or knowingly benefited from sex
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: trafficking under the TVPA and obstructed enforcement of the TVPA.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: As this court has recognized, Staley is a key figure
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: in the allegations made in plaintiff and co-plaintiff's complaints. He
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: and the facts relating to him will therefore be a
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: prominent focus of the trial of the underlying case between
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: plaintiff Jane Doe 1, co-plaintiff the government of the United
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: States Virgin Islands, and J.P. Morgan. Doe Docket 82. Order
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: denying motion to sever at 2. It's alleged that JPMC
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: knew about Epstein's sex trafficking allegations through Staley. Doe F.A.C., 200, 230, 231,
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: and 239, and that Staley influenced JPMC's decisions regarding Epstein's
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: accounts before Staley left JPMC in 2013. Following Doe's deposition,
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: where she expanded on her allegations concerning Staley's involvement with
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: Epstein's misconduct and accused Staley of the horrific act of
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: forcible sexual assault, JPMC then filed third-party complaints against Staley.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: Staley promised repeatedly... to abide by JPMC's code of conduct
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: under which he acknowledged the duty to act in JPMC's
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: best interests, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to avoid
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: any activities that would damage JPMC, either financially or reputationally.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: JPMC Complaint 17-20 Yet, according to Doe, Staley knew that
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: Epstein was trafficking and abusing girls, personally observed Doe as
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: a sex trafficking and abuse victim, personally spent time with
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: young girls whom he met through Epstein on several occasions,
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: personally visited young girls at Epstein's apartments located at 301
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: East 66th Street, personally observed Epstein around young girls, and
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: personally observed Epstein sexually grab young women in front of him.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Citing Doe, FAC 115, 128, 226, and 227. Doe further
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: alleges that Staley sexually assaulted her with force and aggression,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: adding that he had Epstein's permission to do what he
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: wanted to her. ID, citing Doe, FAC at 107. The
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: USVI also alleged that specific communications between Staley and Epstein
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: suggest that the USVI's words that Staley may have been
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: involved in Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Moreover, plaintiffs allege that
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: Staley promised to use his clout within JPMorgan to make
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: Epstein untouchable, repeatedly thwarted JPMC's efforts to sever ties with Epstein,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: and played a role in convincing JPMC to maintain Epstein
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: as a JPMC client. JPMC alleges that if plaintiff's allegations
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: regarding Epstein and Staley's conduct are true, then Staley affirmatively
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: concealed this highly relevant information, clearly in violation of JPMC's
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: code of conduct from JPMC. Staley did not disclose this
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: information to JPMC, even when JPMC asked him to offer
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: his views as to whether JPMC should retain Epstein as
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: a client, putting his personal interests first in opposition to
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: JPMC's interests. JPMC's third-party complaints against Staley assert claims of idemification, contribution,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: breach of fiduciary duty, and violation of the faithless servant doctrine.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: Argument 1. JPMC's third-party complaint contains well-pleaded allegations. Staley contends
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: that the idemity and contribution claims should be dismissed as
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: an impermissible shotgun pleading, motion at 7 and 8. Yet
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: his own motions to dismiss belies his assertions that these
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: counts are confusing or lack an adequate notice of the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: allegation that support claims against him. Indeed, Staley's motion to
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: dismiss painstakingly articulates exactly the allegations he believes are insufficient
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: to state the claims that have been brought against him.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Identification on both the negligence and the TVPA claims and
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: contribution on the negligence and TVPA claims. because the complaint
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: makes clear which allegations of fact are intended to support
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: which claims of relief. It's not an improper shotgun pleading.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Security and Exchange Commission v. See-Through Equity, LLC, 2019, WL-1998027-3, SDNY,
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: April 26, 2019, quoting Croons v. New York State Office
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: of Mental Health, 18F. SUPP3D- 193199, NDNY 2014. see also digital tech
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: international fze versus alchemy financial incorporated 2022 wl 91 296
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: 5 at 5 sdny march 29th 2022 Rejecting a request
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: for dismissal because the complaint is not confusing and it's
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: not drafted in a manner that gives rise to an
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: inference of bad faith. Staley appears to rely solely on
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: the hyper-technical assertion that the complaint does not contain two
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: identification counts and two contribution counts, one each for the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: TVPA and another two for the underlying negligence claims. Motion
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: at 8, but Staley fails to articulate any other prejudice.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: In fact, he concedes that New York state law would
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: provide the rule of decision for contribution and identification under
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: the TVPA and urges the court to analyze the TVPA
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: and state law identification and contribution claims together. Idea 12
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: and 7. The only authority Staley invokes is a parenthetical
• 11:04
  Speaker 1: reference in a district court case. to types of shotgun pleadings,
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: including one that does not separate into a different count
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: each cause of action or claim for relief. See Sissy vs.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: Zanucci 2022 WL 118-3274 at 2 NDNY April 21, 2022
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: Quoting Weiland vs. Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office 792 F. 3D
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: 1313-1321 11th Circuit 2015 But Weiland did not establish a
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: rule that any and every complaint that fails to include
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: each cause of action in a separate count must be dismissed.
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: Quite the contrary. The court explained that if the unifying
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: characteristic of all types of shotgun pleadings is that they
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: fail to one degree or another, in one way or another,
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: to give the defendants adequate notice of the claims against
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: them and the grounds upon which each claim rests. Weiland, 792, F. 3D
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: at 1323. While several claims in Weiland fell within the
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: definition of one of the types of shotgun pleadings, dismissal
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: was unwarranted because whatever their faults, the counts were informative
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: enough to permit the court to readily determine if the
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Idea 1326.
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: That is precisely the case here. JPMC relies on the
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: very same allegations that Doe and USVI brought against JPMC
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: in the first instance. and which the court found adequate
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: to survive a motion to dismiss. Moreover, despite Staley's formulistic argument,
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: he voices no confusion whatsoever regarding the claims that are
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: brought against him, nor did he seek a more definite
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: statement under FEDAR Civ P-12E, the appropriate remedy for an
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: actual shotgun pleading. All right, we're going to wrap up
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: this episode here, and in the next episode, we're going
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: to pick up with Section 2, identification, and contribution claims
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: are permissible under the TVPA. All of the information that
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.