Ex-JPMorgan banker Chirayu Rana wants to drop NY – Business News
Former JPMorgan huge shot Chirayu Rana – who accused his feminine boss of forcing him into humiliating intercourse acts – is pulling the plug on his salacious New York state court docket case to make approach for a “comprehensive” federal lawsuit.
Rana’s new legal staff — a complete of 5 legal professionals — claims in explosive new filings that the unique swimsuit towards Lorna Hajdini neglected essential federal violations, together with race discrimination, retaliation and interference with household and medical depart.
The full airing of grievances ought to now happen in federal somewhat than state court docket, in accordance to the court docket paperwork filed Monday in Manhattan Supreme Court.
Former JPMorgan huge shot Chirayu Rana is pulling the plug on his salacious New York state court docket case to make approach for a “comprehensive” federal lawsuit. Sage Mount
“The public has been fed a wildly distorted version of this case, manufactured from sensational headlines that bear no resemblance to what actually happened to Mr. Rana,” mentioned Rana’s new legal professional Jon L. Norinsberg.
His new legal professionals, in accordance to filings and statements made Monday, declare there’s “substantial new evidence we have uncovered,” however fail to cite any specifics.
But Rana’s new fleet of attorneys — together with two title companions and the top of litigation from worker powerhouse firm Joseph & Norinsberg — additionally cited First Amendment defences in response to Hajdini’s counterclaim of defamation.
Rana’s new legal staff claimed in explosive new filings that the unique swimsuit towards Lorna Hajdini (above) neglected essential particulars. Linkedin
At least some of his statements “are matters of opinion, they are not capable of being proven true or false.”
“Some or all of the statements at issue are not actionable under the First Amendment and New York law,” in accordance to the court docket papers, “because they constitute statements of opinion or rhetorical hyperbole.”
“This countersuit is a transparent act of retaliation, a desperate effort to punish Mr. Rana for having the courage to report the racism and abuse he suffered,” mentioned Bennitta L. Joseph, one other one of Rana’s new legal professionals.
Hajdini’s counterclaims in state court docket can be unaffected by his transfer to discontinue his own claims.
The court docket docs additionally declare that “some or all of the statements at issue are true or substantially true,” however didn’t specify which or the excellence between the legalese.
“At all times Plaintiff acted in good faith and with no improper motive,” the submitting states.
JPMorgan has additionally strongly denied Rana’s claims.
Neither the bank nor reps for Hajdini instantly responded to requests for remark.
Follow the newest on the weird JPMorgan banker ‘sex slave’ allegations:
The new federal lawsuit guarantees to be below his actual title and never an nameless pseudonym, which a Manhattan Supreme Court decide ruled he should do within the state lawsuit final month.
“Resolving the matter in a single federal proceeding will avoid piecemeal or parallel litigation and conserve the resources of the parties and this Court,” the submitting reads, including that Rana will plan on submitting the theoretical federal swimsuit by the tip of the month.
Prior to shuffling by two separate law companies on this case, Rana had reportedly sought legal advice from a free, public legal chatbot on the web.
Start your day with all you need to know
Morning Report delivers the newest information, videos, images and more.
Thanks for signing up!
Rana’s authentic salacious lawsuit in Manhattan Supreme Court claimed he was subjected to a sustained marketing campaign of sexual coercion and racial degradation whereas management ignored his complaints, and that Hajdini threatened to slash his bonus except he agreed to develop into her “sex slave.”
His initial lawyer, a month after submitting Rana’s swimsuit — and hours earlier than their first court docket look, sought to drop his consumer, citing a mutual settlement.
But the court docket compelled him to come to the listening to, the place their request to proceed as “John Doe” was denied in an hourlong session.
“The case law makes it really clear,” mentioned Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Dakota D. Ramseur. “You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”
Ramseur concluded that listening to by encouraging each side to “find out what, if anything, can make this case resolve itself.”
By signaling their intent to take their case to the feds, Rana and his 5 attorneys seem to be taking a totally different method as an alternative.
