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

Internet Evidence — Medical Article Pulled from Web by Author Who Has Not Examined Plaintiff Inadmissible to Prove Incurability of Plaintiff’s Medical Condition

Debbie Flo, Inc. v. Shuman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14526; 2014 AMC 840 (D.N.J. Feb. 5, 2014): This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Debbie Flo, Inc. ("Plaintiff") to terminate maintenance and cure, or in the alternative to suspend maintenance until advances are recouped. For the reasons expressed herein, Plainti ...
Debbie Flo, Inc. v. Shuman, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14526; 2014 AMC 840 (D.N.J. Feb. 5, 2014): This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Debbie Flo, Inc. ("Plaintiff") to terminate maintenance and cure, or in the alternative…
Continue Reading

Disclosure of Work Product to Adversary during Settlement Talks Waives Protection Despite Common Goal of Reaching Quick Settlement — No Common Law Privilege for Plea Negotiations — Presumption against Creating New Privileges

Doe v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014): 2. The Intervenors Waived Any Work-Product Privilege. The intervenors next contend that the correspondence falls under the work-product privilege, but the finding of the district court that the intervenors waived any privilege when they voluntarily sent the ...
Doe v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014): 2. The Intervenors Waived Any Work-Product Privilege. The intervenors next contend that the correspondence falls under the work-product privilege, but the finding of the district court that the intervenors waived…
Continue Reading

When Is Mandamus Available to Review Order Denying Attorney-Client Privilege? — Factors — Error Must Be “Clear and Indisputable” and Review “Appropriate” — Mandamus Not Precluded by Mohawk

In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12115 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014) (Note:  The Court’s privilege analysis was excerpted in our post of July 3, 2014): Having concluded that the District Court's privilege ruling constituted error, we still must decide whether that error justifies a writ of ma ...
In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12115 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014) (Note:  The Court’s privilege analysis was excerpted in our post of July 3, 2014): Having concluded that the District Court's privilege…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Including Improper Plaintiff in Action for Purpose of Securing Venue Is a Sanctionable Improper Purpose

Grant v. Nat’l College for DUI Defense, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11456 (9th Cir. June 18, 2014): Okorie Okorocha, an attorney representing plaintiff Deandra Grant, appeals pro se from the district court's order imposing sanctions on Okorocha under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ...
Grant v. Nat’l College for DUI Defense, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11456 (9th Cir. June 18, 2014): Okorie Okorocha, an attorney representing plaintiff Deandra Grant, appeals pro se from the district court's order imposing sanctions on Okorocha under Rule 11…
Continue Reading

Shareholder/Officer Lacks Standing to Sue for RICO Harm to Corporation — High Standard to Prove Tortious Interference with Prospective Contractual Relationship — Creditor Typically Owes No Fiduciary Duties to Debtor — Appeals: Briefing Failure

Infanti v. Scharpf, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11833 (2d Cir. June 24, 2014): In 1996, plaintiff-appellant Vittorio Infanti ("Infanti") and the Infanti Chair Manufacturing Company ("Infanti Chair") were found liable for trade dress infringement and a $15 million judgment was entered against them. Infanti filed fo ...
Infanti v. Scharpf, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11833 (2d Cir. June 24, 2014): In 1996, plaintiff-appellant Vittorio Infanti ("Infanti") and the Infanti Chair Manufacturing Company ("Infanti Chair") were found liable for trade dress infringement and a $15 million judgment was …
Continue Reading

When May a District Court Decline Jurisdiction over a Mixed Claim for Declaratory and Legal Relief? 4-Way Circuit Split over Standard — Declining Jurisdiction in Absence of Parallel State Case Hits “Outer Boundary” of Court’s Discretion

Reifer v. Westport Ins. Corp., 751 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2014): Appellant Westport Insurance Corporation ("Westport") appeals the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's decision declining to exercise jurisdiction over the instant case and its Order dismissing the case without prejudice and remanding it to t ...
Reifer v. Westport Ins. Corp., 751 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2014): Appellant Westport Insurance Corporation ("Westport") appeals the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania's decision declining to exercise jurisdiction over the instant case and its Order dismissing the…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Internal Investigation Mandated by Law, Supervised by Inhouse Counsel, Conducted by Non-Lawyers Privileged Despite No Corporate Miranda Warnings — Test : Was A Primary Purpose to Obtain Legal Advice?

In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12115 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014): More than three decades ago, the Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protects confidential employee communications made during a business's internal investigation led by company lawyers. See Upjohn Co. v. ...
In re Kellogg, Brown & Root, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12115 (D.C. Cir. June 27, 2014): More than three decades ago, the Supreme Court held that the attorney-client privilege protects confidential employee communications made during a business's internal investigation …
Continue Reading

Removal — While Post-Removal Amendment May Cure Defective Jurisdictional Allegations, It Can’t Create Jurisdiction Where None Existed at Filing and Case Hasn’t Been Tried — Rule 12 Dismissal ≠ Trial (Good Quote)

Camsoft Data Sys., Inc. v. S. Elec. Supply, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11596 (5th Cir. June 19, 2014): IV. Remand Our analysis does not end with the improper removal, however, because Appellants argue that the subsequently pleaded federal causes of action preclude remand. This court is, of course, bound by its ...
Camsoft Data Sys., Inc. v. S. Elec. Supply, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11596 (5th Cir. June 19, 2014): IV. Remand Our analysis does not end with the improper removal, however, because Appellants argue that the subsequently pleaded federal causes…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Wayback Machine

Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88068 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014): This case involves putative class action claims related to Defendant 23andMe, Inc.'s ("23andMe") advertising and marketing of its Personal Genome Service. 23andMe filed an Omnibus Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Alternatively ...
Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88068 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014): This case involves putative class action claims related to Defendant 23andMe, Inc.'s ("23andMe") advertising and marketing of its Personal Genome Service. 23andMe filed an Omnibus Motion to…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Stay vs. Dismissal of Action upon Granting of Motion to Compel (Circuit Split as to What FAA § 3 Mandates) — Dispositive Difference for Appellate Jurisdiction Purposes

Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11743 (9th Cir. June 23, 2014): This is a class action brought by plaintiff Fatemeh Johnmohammadi to recover unpaid overtime wages from defendant Bloomingdale's, Inc., her former employer. All of Johnmohammadi's claims arise under state law and are asserted on behal ...
Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11743 (9th Cir. June 23, 2014): This is a class action brought by plaintiff Fatemeh Johnmohammadi to recover unpaid overtime wages from defendant Bloomingdale's, Inc., her former employer. All of Johnmohammadi's claims…
Continue Reading
Previous235236237238239240241Next

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