Padma Rao v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. and KIEFER KRAUSE

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

-- 1 of 2 --

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.

-- 2 of 2 --