New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
Commercial Litigation and Arbitration
« Back to Complex Lit Blog

Arbitration: Appealability — Order Compelling Arbitration Not Appealable Unless It Disposes of Entire Action — Merely Directing Arbitration Or Staying Action Pending Arbitration Requires §1292(b) Certification

Download PDF

Gold Coast Prop. Mgmt. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 27098 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2019):

THE COURT:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. The district court's June 14, 2019 order granting the motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings and denying the motion to remand to the state court is not a final and appealable order, and we therefore lack jurisdiction over [*2]  this appeal. See 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(3), (b)(1)-(3) (providing for appeals from final decisions with respect to arbitration and stating that an appeal may not be taken from an interlocutory order staying an action pending arbitration, directing arbitration to proceed, or compelling arbitration, absent certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)); Hill v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., 398 F.3d 1286, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005) (stating that a district court's decision compelling arbitration is appealable when it disposes of the entire case and leaves no part pending before it); Woodard v. STP Corp., 170 F.3d 1043, 1044 (11th Cir. 1999) (explaining that the denial of a motion to remand is an interlocutory order and is reviewable only after final judgment or upon certification under § 1292(b)); Am. Express Fin. Advisors, Inc. v. Makarewicz, 122 F.3d 936, 939 (11th Cir. 1997) (dismissing appeal of order compelling arbitration, staying proceedings, and administratively closing the case); see also Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86, 87 n.2, 121 S. Ct. 513, 148 L. Ed. 2d 373 (2000) (concluding that § 16(a)(3) uses the same concept of finality as 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and noting that if the district court had entered a stay rather than a dismissal, the order would not be appealable, per 9 U.S.C. § 16(b)(1)).

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.

 

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

Archives
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.
New York Attorneys JHA handles range the gamut of complex financial and commercial litigation and arbitration, including securities, RICO, corporate and contract disputes, credit default swaps, derivatives, and class, mass, and derivative actions. The firm also represents law firms in major disputes.

New York Office

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice