Monarch Air Group, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

── Monarch Air Group, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 14, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 23-14191 Document: 78-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 1 of 24 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-14191 ____________________ MONARCH AIR GROUP, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d.b.a. Mercury Jets, DAVID GITMAN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a foreign profit corporation, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-62429-WPD ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 23-14191 Document: 78-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 2 of 24 2 Opinion of the Court 23-14191 Plaintiffs-Appellants David Gitman and Monarch Air Group, LLC (collectively, “Monarch”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment on their defamation claims against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”). The parties’ dispute stems from Chase’s addition of Mon- arch to its internal anti-money-laundering “interdiction” list in mid- 2020. After that point, Chase canceled its customers’ attempts to wire money to Monarch. When it did so, Chase told its customers that the payment could not go through “due to Sanctions and/or Internal JPMC Policy.” Monarch contends that this statement was false because Monarch was not subject to investigations or sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. On top of that, Monarch asserts that Chase built a “bureaucratic defama- tion machine” to knowingly spread untrue information about it. On appeal, Monarch challenges three of the district court’s rulings in furtherance of its order granting summary judgment for Chase. First, Monarch argues that the district court abused its dis- cretion by striking a statement of undisputed material facts that Monarch filed, because Monarch failed to comply with a local rule. Second, Monarch maintains that the district court erred in holding that Chase’s statements to customers were protected by qualified privilege and made without express malice. Third, Monarch con- tends that the court abused its discretion by denying Monarch’s motion for relief from the judgment based on alleged discovery misconduct by Chase. USCA11 Case: 23-14191 Document: 78-1 Date Filed: 04/14/2026 Page: 3 of 24 23-14191 Opinion of the Court 3 After careful review, we find no error or abuse of discretion. So we affirm the district court’s rulings. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background1 Plaintiffs-Appellants are Monarch Air Group, LLC, a Florida- based air-charter provider, and David Gitman, the owner and pres- ident of the LLC. Defendant-Appellee Chase is a national bank. In mid-2020, Chase placed Monarch on an internal “interdiction” list based on company procedures. Monarch’s presence on the interdiction list led Chase to ca