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

28 U.S.C. § 1782 — Statutory & Discretionary Factors — International (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Is a “Foreign Proceeding” for Which Discovery May Be Ordered under § 1782

In re Application of Republic of Ecuador, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169500 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2015): The Republic of Ecuador and its civil attorney general, Dr. Diego García Carrión (collectively, the "Republic") submitted an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) for an order allowing them to serve a subpoena on Dr. ...
In re Application of Republic of Ecuador, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169500 (D. Mass. Dec. 18, 2015): The Republic of Ecuador and its civil attorney general, Dr. Diego García Carrión (collectively, the "Republic") submitted an application under 28 U.S.C. §…
Continue Reading

Email Admissible for Nonhearsay Purpose of Showing Recipient Was Informed of Info It Reflects (Here, Party’s Interpretation of Alleged Contract) — Authenticated by Affidavit of Recipient and Fact Objecting Party Produced It in Discovery

Nola Fine Art, Inc. v. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17450 (E.D. La. Feb. 12, 2015): a. Ducks Unlimited's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Exhibits Ducks Unlimited moves to strike two of plaintiffs' summary judgment exhibits. First, Ducks Unlimited moves to strik ...
Nola Fine Art, Inc. v. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17450 (E.D. La. Feb. 12, 2015): a. Ducks Unlimited's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Exhibits Ducks Unlimited moves to strike two of plaintiffs' summary judgment exhibits. First,…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Require Bad Faith or Willful Disobedience of Order — Court Must Be Sure of Facts and Law on Which It Acts (Good Quote) — Contempt Immediately Appealable by Nonparty — Premature Notice of Appeal Takes Effect When Case Ends

Trade Well Int’l v. United Central Bank, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2100 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015): Maurice Salem, a member of the New York Bar, was admitted pro hac vice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in connection with some commercial litigation. Salem represents Trade Well International, a Paki ...
Trade Well Int’l v. United Central Bank, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2100 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015): Maurice Salem, a member of the New York Bar, was admitted pro hac vice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District…
Continue Reading

Punitive Damages — Constitutionality — Factors — Punitives in Excess of Compensatory Upheld for Defamation

Armstrong v. Shirvell, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1782 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2015): Andrew Shirvell, an alumnus of the University of Michigan and a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, engaged in an online and in-person "campaign" against Christopher Armstrong, the former president of the University of Michigan ...
Armstrong v. Shirvell, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1782 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2015): Andrew Shirvell, an alumnus of the University of Michigan and a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, engaged in an online and in-person "campaign"…
Continue Reading

District Judge’s Recusal and Disqualification Decisions Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Quasi-Judicial Immunity Extends to Attorney Disciplinary (Grievance) Committees in New York

Neroni v. Coccoma, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1485 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015): Frederick J. Neroni appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights and denying his motion to recuse Judge Sharpe. *** A district judge ...
Neroni v. Coccoma, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1485 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015): Frederick J. Neroni appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights and denying his…
Continue Reading

Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration — Factors — The Key to a Waiver Analysis Is Prejudice (Good Quote) — Types of Prejudice: Substantive, Excessive Cost — No Waiver Absent Substantial Motion Practice or Discovery

Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 773 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015):   We review [*2]  a district court's decision regarding waiver of a party's right to arbitrate de novo. Thyssen, Inc. v. Calypso Shipping Corp., S.A., 310 F.3d 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2002). The appeal turn ...
Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 773 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015):   We review [*2]  a district court's decision regarding waiver of a party's right to arbitrate de novo. Thyssen, Inc. v. Calypso Shipping Corp., S.A.,…
Continue Reading

Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Limited to Issues of First Impression or That Are Particularly Complicated and Committed to Agency Discretion, and If Protections of Regulatory Scheme Dictates Preliminary Resort to Agency — Factors

Alvarado v. Bay Area Credit Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5646 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015): "The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency." Clark v. Time Warner Cab ...
Alvarado v. Bay Area Credit Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5646 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015): "The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within…
Continue Reading

First Amendment Bars Courts from Deciding Religious Questions, But Not Disputes Secular in Nature — RICO Claim Dependent on Resolution of Disputed Religious Question Precluded — Judicial Estoppel: Factors (Majority View)

Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 523 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015): This case publishes a new chapter in the legal struggle for control of Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. (Hutterville), a South Dakota religious nonprofit corporation whose members [*2]  have split into factions, mirroring a l ...
Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 523 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015): This case publishes a new chapter in the legal struggle for control of Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. (Hutterville), a South Dakota religious nonprofit corporation …
Continue Reading

Appellate Review of Decisions under Rule 56(h) (Bad Faith Affidavit on Summary Judgment) = Abuse of Discretion

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015): In this copyright case, Washington Shoe Company1 seeks reversal of the District Court's summary judgment ruling that Olem Shoe Corporation did not willfully infringe its copyrights. By its cross-appeal, Olem seeks reversal of the Court ...
Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015): In this copyright case, Washington Shoe Company1 seeks reversal of the District Court's summary judgment ruling that Olem Shoe Corporation did not willfully…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Party’s Financial Condition as Reflected in Its 10-K Retrieved from EDGAR Considered on Irreparable Harm Prong of Preliminary Injunction Application

Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. N. Am Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re All Matters Related to N. Am. Refractories Co.), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 4191 (Bankr. Dec. 16, 2015): Presently before the Court for decision following an extensive hearing, briefing, and argument is the Motion for Preliminary Injunct ...
Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. N. Am Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re All Matters Related to N. Am. Refractories Co.), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 4191 (Bankr. Dec. 16, 2015): Presently before the Court for decision following an extensive hearing,…
Continue Reading
Previous181182183184185186187Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

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

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