Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-JCF Document 200-11 Filed 06/29/17 Page 1 of 3

([KLELW.
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-JCF Document 200-11 Filed 06/29/17 Page 2 of 3
USCA Case #17-7003 Document #1679708 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 1 of 77

[ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED]

No. 17-7003

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. LAURENCE SCHNEIDER, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

LAURENCE SCHNEIDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; JPMORGAN

CHASE & CO.; CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE

SUPPORTING NEITHER PARTY

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
CHANNING D. PHILLIPS
United States Attorney
MICHAEL S. RAAB
ADAM C. JED
(202) 514-8280
Attorneys, Appellate Staff
Civil Division, Room 7240
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
 Case 1:15-cv-00293-LTS-JCF Document 200-11 Filed 06/29/17 Page 3 of 3
USCA Case #17-7003 Document #1679708 Filed: 06/14/2017 Page 18 of 77

The “Enforcement Terms” also state that Chase’s “obligations under this

Consent Judgment shall be enforceable solely in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia” and that “[a]n enforcement action under th[e] Consent

Judgment may be brought by any Party to this Consent Judgment or the Monitoring

Committee.” Consent J. Ex. E, § J(2). Ordinarily “prior to commencing any

enforcement action, a Party must provide notice to the Monitoring Committee of its

intent to bring an action to enforce th[e] Consent Judgment.” Ibid. The committee

then has “21 days to determine whether to bring an enforcement action.” Ibid. If the

committee declines to do so, “the Party must wait 21 additional days . . . before

commencing an enforcement action.” Ibid.

The United States has not invoked the consent judgment’s procedures or

otherwise asked the district court to enforce the terms of the judgment against Chase.

Based on the information currently available to it, including the reports filed by the

Monitor, the United States is unaware of any violation of the agreed-to terms.

B. Factual Background and Procedural History

1. The plaintiff in this case is a relator who filed a qui tam suit against

JPMorgan Chase under the False Claims Act and similar state laws. JA27, JA39,

JA94-JA116 (Second Am. Compl.). As relevant here, relator alleges that Chase

violated the so-called “reverse” provision of the False Claims Act when Chase claimed

to have complied with various aspects of the National Mortgage Settlement, thereby

avoiding additional payments and penalties required under the consent judgment.
7