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

Complex Lit Blog

District Court Is Bound to Follow the Law of Its Circuit and Is Not to Resolve Circuit Splits (Good Quote)

Harris v. Warden, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172172 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2015): This Court is bound to follow the law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Zuniga v. United Can Co., 812 F.2d 443, 450 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognizing that [*12]  district courts are "bound by the law of their own circuit," and &quo ...
Harris v. Warden, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172172 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 28, 2015): This Court is bound to follow the law of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Zuniga v. United Can Co., 812 F.2d 443, 450 (9th Cir. 1987)…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Unaccepted Offer of Judgment or Contractual Offer Doesn’t Moot Case (Here, Class Action) — Does Deposit of Full Amount? — Must Liability Be Admitted? — Must Court Enter Judgment for Plaintiff?

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016): Is an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim sufficient to render a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of persons similarly situated? This question, on which Courts of Ap ...
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016): Is an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim sufficient to render a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and …
Continue Reading

Are Life Settlements Securities? — Circuit Split

SEC v. Pacific West Capital Grp., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174800 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2015): Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction ("Motion"), the ...
SEC v. Pacific West Capital Grp., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174800 (C.D. Cal. June 16, 2015): Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order Re: Motion for Preliminary Injunction Having reviewed and considered all the briefing filed with respect to plaintiff's Motion for…
Continue Reading

Contents of Website Incorporated by Reference in Complaint May Be Considered on Motion to Dismiss — Case Law Split

Mophie, Inc. v. Shah, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185203 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2014): 2   The Court considers this evidence of the Living Social policy on its website because the TAC relies on LivingSocial's website (TAC ¶ 38, Exh. 21; ¶ 41, Exh. 23 (LivingSocial's terms and conditions from its website) an ...
Mophie, Inc. v. Shah, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185203 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2014): 2   The Court considers this evidence of the Living Social policy on its website because the TAC relies on LivingSocial's website (TAC ¶ 38, Exh. 21;…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Dismissal as the Reciprocal of Default Judgment — Fact That Preclusion of Plaintiff’s Testimony Would Lead to Dismissal Cited as Supporting Harsher Sanction

Secrease v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015): This appeal is a reminder of a district judge's inherent power to impose the severe sanction of dismissal (on a plaintiff) or default (on a defendant) when a party deliberately tries to defraud the court. We affirm the dismissa ...
Secrease v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015): This appeal is a reminder of a district judge's inherent power to impose the severe sanction of dismissal (on a plaintiff) or …
Continue Reading

Public Access to Motion Papers Hinges on Whether the Motion Is “More Than Tangentially Related to the Merits,” Not Whether It Is Dispositive (9th Cir. — 3 Opinions) — Other Circuits’ Case Law Reviewed

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 374 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016): The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) appeals from the district court's order denying CAS's motions to intervene and unseal documents filed in a putative class action lawsuit between Chrysler Group, LLC (Chrysler) and certain [* ...
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 374 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016): The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) appeals from the district court's order denying CAS's motions to intervene and unseal documents filed in…
Continue Reading

Removal — If Complaint Seeks Nonmonetary Relief, Notice of Removal Need Only Plausibly Allege That Amount in Controversy Exceeds $75,000 — Valuing Injunctive Relief from Plaintiff’s vs. Defendant’s Viewpoint (Circuit Split)

Heartland Mt. Airy of Cincinnati OH., LLC v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18688 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2015): Federal courts have jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). When a plaintiff invokes federal jurisdiction by filing an action ...
Heartland Mt. Airy of Cincinnati OH., LLC v. Johnson, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18688 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 17, 2015): Federal courts have jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §…
Continue Reading

Personal Jurisdiction — Is a Corporation Still Subject to Jurisdiction Because It Appointed an Agent for Process When It Registered to Do Business? — Circuit Split — Admission of Personal Jurisdiction in One Case Doesn’t Extend to Another

Takeda GMBH v. Mylan Pharma. Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3490 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016): Plaintiffs, Takeda GmbH, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca UK Limited (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), bring this Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement suit against Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Defe ...
Takeda GMBH v. Mylan Pharma. Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3490 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016): Plaintiffs, Takeda GmbH, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, and AstraZeneca UK Limited (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), bring this Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement suit against Defendant Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Defendant"),…
Continue Reading

Website Evidence — Because a Website Is a Dynamic Collection of Changing Data, Reference to It in Complaint Does Not Incorporate Any Specific Page as of Any Specific Date — No Judicial Notice of Wayback Machine in Seventh Circuit

My Health, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172252 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2015): My Health, Inc. alleges that General Electric Company infringes its federally registered trademark, MY HEALTH. (The court will use all capitals to refer to the mark and "My Health" to refer to the plaintiff.) My Health uses MY HEALTH i ...
My Health, Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172252 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 28, 2015): My Health, Inc. alleges that General Electric Company infringes its federally registered trademark, MY HEALTH. (The court will use all capitals to refer…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — Can the All Writs Act Provide Removal Jurisdiction in Extraordinary Circumstances when There Is No Independent Basis for Jurisdiction? — Circuit Split

Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. v. Grill Holdings, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132930 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015): II. All Writs Act In the alternative, Defendants assert that the Court should exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writs Act, which states that "[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established ...
Camellia Grill Holdings, Inc. v. Grill Holdings, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132930 (E.D. La. Sept. 30, 2015): II. All Writs Act In the alternative, Defendants assert that the Court should exercise jurisdiction pursuant to the All Writs Act, which…
Continue Reading
Previous178179180181182183184Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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