On Feb. 19, 2026, JPMorgan Chase & Co. told a court that President Donald Trump improperly named CEO Jamie Dimon as a defendant in the $5 billion lawsuit over the bank’s closure of his accounts. The bank filed to remove the case from Florida state court to federal court in Miami, saying the complaint’s strategy was aimed at keeping the matter in Florida. JPMorgan added it would seek to transfer the dispute to New York in due course. The filing disputed Mr. Trump’s claim that Mr. Dimon directed the bank to put Trump and his businesses on a “blacklist.”
Key takeaways
- JPMorgan filed on Feb. 19, 2026, seeking federal removal of a $5 billion suit that President Trump brought in Florida state court.
- The bank says Jamie Dimon was “improperly named” as a defendant and that the naming was a procedural device to secure Florida jurisdiction.
- Trump’s complaint alleges the bank placed Trump and related entities on a “blacklist” after closing accounts; JPMorgan says that claim is not actionable under the Florida statute cited.
- JPMorgan asked to move the case first to federal court in Miami and signaled an eventual request to transfer venue to New York federal court.
- The dispute centers on account closures, alleged reputational harm, and the legal question of whether a CEO can be personally sued under the cited Florida law.
- The bank framed its filing as a jurisdictional and procedural defense rather than a response to the underlying merits of the $5 billion damages claim.
Background
High-profile litigants sometimes choose forum and defendants in ways that affect where a case will be heard. Plaintiffs may name local individuals or entities to establish state-court connections; defendants often respond by seeking removal to federal court or transfer on venue grounds. Financial institutions have frequently been at the center of account-closure disputes, which can involve contract, bank-practice and reputational theories of harm. In this instance, Trump lodged a $5 billion suit after JPMorgan closed accounts tied to him and some of his businesses, alleging both procedural and reputational injury.
JPMorgan’s response on Feb. 19 framed the inclusion of Jamie Dimon — the bank’s long-serving chief executive — as improper for jurisdictional reasons rather than substantive ones. The bank’s filing seeks a two-step pathway: removal to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami, then eventual transfer to the Southern District of New York. That pathway reflects common litigation tactics where defendants challenge a plaintiff’s choice of forum before litigating the core merits of the case.
Main event
In a Thursday court filing, JPMorgan argued that Mr. Dimon was named to permit state-court jurisdiction under Florida law and that the statutory grounds cited by the plaintiff do not support suing a CEO for the conduct alleged. The bank asked the Miami federal court to accept removal jurisdiction and to stay any state-court proceedings while jurisdictional issues are resolved. JPMorgan also told the court it anticipates seeking a transfer to New York — where the bank is headquartered — on forum non conveniens or related venue grounds.
Trump’s complaint, as reported by the news media, includes an allegation that executives instructed staff to place Mr. Trump and some of his businesses on a so-called “blacklist” after the accounts were closed. JPMorgan’s filing says that characterization does not establish liability under the Florida statute cited and that including Mr. Dimon personally was therefore improper. The bank emphasized procedural defenses in its initial submission rather than offering a detailed factual rebuttal to every allegation in the complaint.
The immediate consequence of JPMorgan’s filing is a likely litigation sequence focused first on jurisdiction and venue. If the federal court in Miami accepts removal, the bank will next pursue transfer to New York; if the federal court declines removal, the case could remain in Florida state court. Each step will involve legal briefing and possibly oral argument on whether the CEO can be sued personally under the claims advanced.
Analysis & implications
Procedural maneuvers over jurisdiction are common in high-stakes litigation because venue can shape discovery scope, judge selection and timetable. If the case moves to federal court in Miami, federal procedures and local rules will control, but transfer to the Southern District of New York would place the matter in the forum where JPMorgan has its principal operations and where federal judges have extensive experience with disputes involving large banks. Venue selection can materially affect litigation cost and strategy for both plaintiff and defendant.
From a legal standpoint, the bank’s contention that the Florida statute does not permit naming a CEO personally turns on statutory text and precedent. Courts will examine whether the causes of action alleged — including any statutory claims — provide a private right to sue company officers. A judge ruling for JPMorgan on that issue could narrow the case to corporate defendants or dispose of certain claims before addressing damages.
The reputational dimension matters politically and commercially. Naming a prominent CEO like Jamie Dimon draws public attention and can amplify pressure on the bank, regardless of legal outcomes. Even if procedural defenses prevail, media and political scrutiny could prompt internal reviews of account-closure practices and public relations responses. For Trump’s legal team, keeping the case in Florida may be a strategic choice tied to local juries or political optics.
Finally, the bank’s stated plan to seek transfer to New York, if pursued, will trigger a separate legal analysis about convenience of parties and witnesses and whether the transfer would serve judicial efficiency. That fight — over removal and transfer — could consume months and postpone any merits adjudication or settlement negotiations, increasing litigation costs for both sides.
Comparison & data
| Event | Date / Time (UTC) |
|---|---|
| Initial Bloomberg report timestamp | |
| Updated report timestamp |
The timeline in the table reflects the reporting timestamps connected to the public account of the filing. Procedural filings like removal motions and venue-transfer requests typically produce separate docket entries; the sequence and timing of those filings will determine the near-term posture of the litigation. The procedural focus at the outset is consistent with many corporate-defense strategies where jurisdictional and pleading defenses are raised before full merits discovery.
Reactions & quotes
Below are short extracts from public filings and reporting that capture the competing procedural positions and allegations in the case.
“Dimon was improperly named”
JPMorgan court filing (as reported)
Trump alleges the bank put him and his businesses on a “blacklist” after closing accounts
Plaintiff’s complaint (as reported)
Both extracts summarize positions described in the filings and media reports; neither blockquote substitutes for full pleadings, which contain fuller factual and legal assertions that the courts will evaluate. Legal observers note that short extracts are commonly used to signal positions at the start of litigation, while longer briefing follows to develop arguments and evidence.
Unconfirmed
- Whether Jamie Dimon had any direct role in decisions about the specific account closures remains unconfirmed by public filings.
- It is not yet confirmed whether the Miami federal court will grant removal or whether a subsequent transfer to New York will be approved.
- Any internal bank communications that would substantiate or refute the “blacklist” allegation have not been disclosed publicly at this stage.
Bottom line
The immediate phase of this dispute is procedural: JPMorgan has asked to move the case out of Florida state court and signaled an eventual transfer to New York, while the plaintiff has framed the complaint to keep the matter in Florida and to seek $5 billion in damages. The outcome of initial motions over removal and venue will shape how quickly the parties reach discovery or settlement talks, and will influence legal costs and tactical options for both sides.
Observers should watch for docket entries on removal and transfer motions, any early rulings on whether a CEO can be sued under the cited statute, and disclosures of internal bank documents that bear on the “blacklist” claim. Those developments will determine whether the litigation remains a pretrial jurisdictional contest or quickly moves to substantive proof and damages issues.
Sources
- Bloomberg — News report summarizing court filings and the parties’ positions.