Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Hart v. Salois, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3696 (10th Cir. Mar. 10, 2015): William Michael Hart, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his Amended Complaint ("Complaint"). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over all but one of the defendants, and alternatively gra ...
Hart v. Salois, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3696 (10th Cir. Mar. 10, 2015): William Michael Hart, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his Amended Complaint ("Complaint"). The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction…
United States v. Mebrtatu, 543 Fed. Appx. 137, 140-41 (3d Cir. 2013): Promise Mebrtatu appeals from the District Court's final judgment of conviction and sentence and requests a new trial. Mebrtatu raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the District Court properly denied Mebrtatu's motion to suppress physica ...
United States v. Mebrtatu, 543 Fed. Appx. 137, 140-41 (3d Cir. 2013): Promise Mebrtatu appeals from the District Court's final judgment of conviction and sentence and requests a new trial. Mebrtatu raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the District…
Jordan v. City of Detroit, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23468 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, an attorney who "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously" may be sanctioned by the court. Such sanctions are appropriate when counsel "objectively falls short of the obligations o ...
Jordan v. City of Detroit, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23468 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2014): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, an attorney who "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously" may be sanctioned by the court. Such sanctions
Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189315 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013): The Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit injunctions that prevent the initiation of a state court proceeding. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 485 (1965); Bank One Delaware, 2003 WL 21703627, at *2. There is a circ ...
Monster Beverage Corp. v. Herrera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189315 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2013): The Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit injunctions that prevent the initiation of a state court proceeding. Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 485 (1965); Bank…
People v. Glover, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 295 (Colo. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2015): [*1]  Defendant, Roger Julius Glover, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree (after deliberation) murder. We affirm. I. Background  [*2]  Defen ...
People v. Glover, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 295 (Colo. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2015): [*1]  Defendant, Roger Julius Glover, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree (after deliberation) murder. We affirm.…
V Cars LLC v. Chery Auto. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3469 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015): Plaintiff V Cars, LLC, appeals the district court judgment denying its motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the plaintiff's suit against defendants Chery Automobile Company, Ltd., Yin Tongyao, and Kan Lei. Because well-established < ...
V Cars LLC v. Chery Auto. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3469 (6th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015): Plaintiff V Cars, LLC, appeals the district court judgment denying its motion for leave to file a second amended complaint in the plaintiff's…
Iqbal v. Patel, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3241 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015): Through a closely held corporation, Mir Iqbal bought a gasoline service station. (He also guaranteed its debts, so we need not mention the corporation again.) Iqbal contracted with S-Mart Petroleum for gasoline. Iqbal then hired Tejaskumar Pat ...
Iqbal v. Patel, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3241 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015): Through a closely held corporation, Mir Iqbal bought a gasoline service station. (He also guaranteed its debts, so we need not mention the corporation again.) Iqbal contracted
Culp v. State, 2014 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 102 (Ala. Crim. App. Nov. 21, 2014): Robert N. Culp, Jr., appeals his conviction for domestic violence in the second degree, a violation of § 13A-6-131, Ala. Code 1975, and his resulting sentence of five years' imprisonment. The circuit court suspended the term of imprisonment and placed Culp on proba ...
Culp v. State, 2014 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 102 (Ala. Crim. App. Nov. 21, 2014): Robert N. Culp, Jr., appeals his conviction for domestic violence in the second degree, a violation of § 13A-6-131, Ala. Code 1975, and his resulting…
In re Fairway Grp. Holding Corp. Secs. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5999 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015): Loss causation is an essential element of a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, but the pleading requirement is not meant to impose a great burden on plaintiffs. See Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo, 5 ...
In re Fairway Grp. Holding Corp. Secs. Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5999 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2015): Loss causation is an essential element of a Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, but the pleading requirement is not meant to impose

Recent Posts

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)

Archives