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

Inherent Power Sanctions for Filing 3rd & 4th Amended Complaints That Added 131 Pages of Text and 402 Pages of Exhibits Stating No New Claims and Only Marginally Pertinent to Existing Claims — Also, No RICO Causation

Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 706 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2016): Plaintiffs Olivia Jiheekim Mack ("Mack") and David Mack, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court's dismissal of Mack's amended complaint against Mack's employer, Delta Air Lines, Inc. ("Delta"), and against Sedgewick ...
Mack v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 706 (11th Cir. Jan. 15, 2016): Plaintiffs Olivia Jiheekim Mack ("Mack") and David Mack, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court's dismissal of Mack's amended complaint against Mack's employer, Delta…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions Not Lightly Invoked — Law Allows for Reasonable Disagreements (Good Quotes) — Mistaken Labeling of Motion as Rule 11 Forgiven — Ignored District Court Warning Case Was Unreasonable & Vexatious

CFE Grp., LLC v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22914 (7th Cir. Dec. 31, 2015): The principal question in this appeal is whether the district court correctly refused to enjoin a state court from adjudicating a case that the state-court plaintiff had voluntarily dismissed in an earlier incarnation in federal court. In the ...
CFE Grp., LLC v. FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22914 (7th Cir. Dec. 31, 2015): The principal question in this appeal is whether the district court correctly refused to enjoin a state court from adjudicating a case that…
Continue Reading

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
Previous188189190191192193194Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice