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

Supreme Court — Removal — § 1446(a) Requires Only Plausible Allegation of Amount in Controversy — Evidence Required Only If Plaintiff Contests, or Court Questions, Defendant’s Allegation — No Presumption against Removal in CAFA Cases

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8435 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014): To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file in the federal forum a notice of removal "containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal." 28 U. S. C. §1446(a). When remov ...
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 8435 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014): To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file in the federal forum a notice of removal…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Wrongly Based in Part on Speculation (X May Have Submitted False Filings) — Defendant Not Tarred with Co-Defendant’s Misconduct — Ninth Circuit Default Standards — Discretion Narrows as Severity of Sanction Increases (Good Quote)

Loops, LLC v. Phoenix Trading, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21602 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2014): The issue before us on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting sanctions of default judgment, attorney's fees, and costs to plaintiffs. The attorney's fees and costs were imposed jointly on defendan ...
Loops, LLC v. Phoenix Trading, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21602 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2014): The issue before us on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in granting sanctions of default judgment, attorney's fees, and costs …
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility — Admissions, State of Mind, Excited Utterance, Intent or Plan — Courts Sometimes More Lenient with Affidavits and Documents of Party Opposing Summary Judgment

Fleming v. Purcell Painting & Coatings Sw., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178471 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2014): Defendant Purcell Painting and Coatings Southwest moves for summary judgment. (Def.'s Corrected Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff Jay Fleming opposes the motion. (Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 39.) ***
Fleming v. Purcell Painting & Coatings Sw., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178471 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2014): Defendant Purcell Painting and Coatings Southwest moves for summary judgment. (Def.'s Corrected Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 29.) Plaintiff Jay Fleming opposes…
Continue Reading

Three Good Quotes When You Have to Change Position or Ask a Judge to

“Justice Frankfurter once remarked that, ‘Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.’  Henslee v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 355 U.S. 595, 600 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).  This is one of those moments.”  Marsden v. Select Medical Corp., 2007 U.S. D ...
“Justice Frankfurter once remarked that, ‘Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late.’  Henslee v. Union Planters Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 355 U.S. 595, 600 (Frankfurter, J.,…
Continue Reading

Circumstantial Email Authentication — Testimony from One User of a Shared Account That Emails Bore the Typical Signature of One Defendant (Sender) and Contents Reflected Matters Known to Her Husband (On Whose Behalf The Messages Were Sent)

Commonwealth v. Johnson, 470 Mass. 300, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 955 (Mass. Dec. 23, 2014): This case concerns the constitutionality of the criminal harassment statute, G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a), and its application to acts of cyberharassment among others. Specifically, we consider whether a pattern of harassing conduct that includes ...
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 470 Mass. 300, 2014 Mass. LEXIS 955 (Mass. Dec. 23, 2014): This case concerns the constitutionality of the criminal harassment statute, G. L. c. 265, § 43A (a), and its application to acts of cyberharassment among others.…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction: Stripping Pro Hac Vice Status (PHV) for Slipping Note to Witness — PHV as Property Right — Tossing Note = Spoliation — That Lawyer Was Corner-Cutting Before Relevant to Sanction (Good Quote)

Ryan v. Astra Tech, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21628 (1st Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (Kayatta, J.): Attorney Jeffrey Ryan ("Ryan") appeals from the district court's revocation of his permission to practice pro hac vice for the plaintiff in the underlying lawsuit that gave rise to these proceedings.1 ...
Ryan v. Astra Tech, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 21628 (1st Cir. Nov. 14, 2014) (Kayatta, J.): Attorney Jeffrey Ryan ("Ryan") appeals from the district court's revocation of his permission to practice pro hac vice for the plaintiff in the …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Obituary Posted on Funeral Home Website Properly Noticed, Like Obituary Appearing in Newspaper

Shaut v. Sec’y of Dep’t of HHS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176591 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2014): On July 23, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Anna M. Shaut filed a complaint against the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") seeking judicial review, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395ff(b), of a May 22, 2014, decision of the Medicar ...
Shaut v. Sec’y of Dep’t of HHS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176591 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2014): On July 23, 2014, pro se Plaintiff Anna M. Shaut filed a complaint against the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS")…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Application of Res Judicata to Nonparties — Six Situations — Federal vs. State Law on the Preclusive Effect of Federal-Court Judgments (Federal Question vs. Diversity Cases)

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008): The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.  See Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 507-508, 121 S. Ct. 1021, 149 L. Ed. 2d 32 (2001).  For judgments in federal-question cases--for example, Herrick ...
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008): The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.  See Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 507-508, 121 S. Ct. 1021, 149 L. Ed. 2d…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Three Approaches to Waiver of Privilege and Work Product Protection — Evidence of Reliance on Advice of Counsel in Settling Case = Waiver in Insurer’s Trial against Adjuster and His Firm

Seneca Ins. Co. v. Western Claims, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24172 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014): Seneca Insurance Company paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit in which its insured alleged Seneca had mishandled insurance claims for hail damage to the insured's property. Seeking to recoup the costs of defending and settling the ...
Seneca Ins. Co. v. Western Claims, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24172 (10th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014): Seneca Insurance Company paid $1 million to settle a lawsuit in which its insured alleged Seneca had mishandled insurance claims for hail damage…
Continue Reading

Realignment of Parties — Court Must Look Beyond Pleadings and Arrange Parties by Their Side in the Dispute — Competing Tests: Primary Purpose vs. Collision of Interests (Circuit Split)

Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Aspen Way Enters., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166747 (D. Mont. Dec. 2, 2014): Before the Court are two motions. *** The second is Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Co.'s ("Hartford Fire") Motion for Realignment (Doc. 41). Concerned that the addition of Hartford Casualty may ruin this Court's diversit ...
Am. Econ. Ins. Co. v. Aspen Way Enters., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166747 (D. Mont. Dec. 2, 2014): Before the Court are two motions. *** The second is Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Co.'s ("Hartford Fire") Motion for Realignment (Doc. 41).…
Continue Reading
Previous221222223224225226227Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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