Padma Rao v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit September 30, 2025

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 September 29, 2025 Before MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge No. 24-1347 PADMA RAO, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 1:21-cv-01361 J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and KIEFER KRAUSE, Mary M. Rowland, Defendants-Appellees. Judge. ORDER Defendant-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 10, 2025. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. 1 The petition therefore is DENIED. The opinion issued on August 27, 2025, is amended as follows: The ﬁrst full sentence on page 15 is amended to read: Because Chase does not offer an alternative reasonable interpretation of Krause’s statements, it cannot prevail as a matter of law under the innocent construction rule. 1Circuit Judges Ilana D. Rovner, Thomas L. Kirsch, Amy J. St. Eve, and John Z. Lee did not participate in the consideration of this petition for rehearing en banc. No. 24-1331 Page 2 Additionally, page 20, paragraph 2, is amended to read: Because we conclude that Chase cannot prevail under the innocent construction rule as a matter of law, and that there are genuine issues of material fact about whether Krause abused his qualified privilege, a jury must determine “whether the statement was in fact understood to be defamatory or to refer to the plaintiff.” Tuite, 866 N.E.2d 114 at 122.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 September 29, 2025 Before MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge No. 24-1347 PADMA RAO, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 1:21-cv-01361 J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and KIEFER KRAUSE, Mary M. Rowland, Defendants-Appellees. Judge. ORDER Defendant-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 10, 2025. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. The petition therefore is DENIED. The opinion issued on August 27, 2025, is amended as follows: The ﬁrst full sentence on page 15 is amended to read: Because Chase does not offer an alternative reasonable interpretation of Krause’s statements, it cannot prevail as a matter of law under the innocent construction rule. No. 24-1347 Page 2 Additionally, page 20, paragraph 2, is amended to read: Because we conclude that Chase cannot prevail under the innocent construction rule as a matter of law, and that there are genuine issues of material fact about whether Krause abused his qualified privilege, a jury must determine “whether the statement was in fact understood to be defamatory or to refer to the plaintiff.” Tuite, 866 N.E.2d 114 at 122.

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

September 29, 2025

Before

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge

JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1347

PADMA RAO, Appeal from the United States District Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. v. No. 1:21-cv-01361 J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and KIEFER KRAUSE, Mary M. Rowland, Defendants-Appellees. Judge.

ORDER

Defendant-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc on September 10, 2025. No judge in regular active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc, and all members of the panel have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. 1 The petition therefore is DENIED. The opinion issued on August 27, 2025, is amended as follows:

The ﬁrst full sentence on page 15 is amended to read:

Because Chase does not offer an alternative reasonable interpretation of Krause’s statements, it cannot prevail as a matter of law under the innocent construction rule.

1Circuit Judges Ilana D. Rovner, Thomas L. Kirsch, Amy J. St. Eve, and John Z. Lee did not participate in the consideration of this petition for rehearing en banc. No. 24-1347 Page 2

Additionally, page 20, paragraph 2, is amended to read:

Because we conclude that Chase cannot prevail under the innocent construction rule as a matter of law, and that there are genuine issues of material fact about whether Krause abused his qualified privilege, a jury must determine “whether the statement was in fact understood to be defamatory or to refer to the plaintiff.” Tuite, 866 N.E.2d 114 at 122.

Reference

Status: Published