Wheat v. Chase Bank, JP Morgan et al, No. 3:2011cv00309 - Document 70 (S.D. Ohio 2014)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 24 ) OF DEFENDANTS CHASE BANK, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, AND MATTHEW COX; GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (COUNT ONE), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (COUNT TWO), AND PLAINTIFF'S OHIO COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (COUNT FIVE); GRANTING SUMM ARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS CHASE BANK, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. AND MATTHEW COX ON ALL CLAIMS; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING IN A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (COUNT THREE) AND CONVERSION (COUNT FOUR) AGAINST DEFENDANT CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION; STRIKING ALL AMENDMENTS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. # 46 ), WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NAMING OF CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION AS A DEFENDANT; OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY (DOC. # 53 ), CONSTRUED AS A MOTION UNDER RULE 56(d) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; OVERRULING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC. # 62 , DOC. # 63 , DOC. # 64 , DOC. # 65 , & DOC. # 66 ); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 02/03/14. (pb1)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.