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 — 2-Pronged Test: Baselessness and Bad Faith — Meritless Motion for Reconsideration Containing Unsupported Attacks on Opponent

Smith v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16494 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2014): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,$ ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Appellant Michael A. Deem appeals from orders dated September ...
Smith v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16494 (2d Cir. Aug. 26, 2014): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED,$ ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED. Appellant…
Continue Reading

Removal—§1447(d)’s Appeal Bar Doesn’t Apply If District Court Lacked Authority to Remand under §1447(c)—§1446(b)’s 1-Year Time Limit to Remove Diversity Case Is Procedural & Waivable, Like 30-Day Initial Removal Period

Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14978 (9th Cir. August 4, 2014): A state court action may not be removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the action was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (current version at 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)).
Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14978 (9th Cir. August 4, 2014): A state court action may not be removed to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the action was filed. …
Continue Reading

NJ Adopts Broad Common Interest Rule— A Common Purpose Suffices—No Litigation Needed—Counsel May Speak to Another’s Client

O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787 (N.J. Sup. Ct. July 21, 2014): This appeal allows the Court to address the application of the common interest rule, which extends the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney work product to information shared with attorneys representing separate clients, in t ...
O’Boyle v. Borough of Longport, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 787 (N.J. Sup. Ct. July 21, 2014): This appeal allows the Court to address the application of the common interest rule, which extends the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and attorney work product…
Continue Reading

Experts: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Even If Exclusion Determines Outcome — Not Ipse Dixit If Qualified Expert Applies Reliable Tools — Industry-Promulgated, Result-Oriented Expert Guidelines Rejected — Bias Is for Jury

Adams v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14471 (11th Cir. July 29, 2014): Christina and Christopher Adams ("the Adamses") filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America ("LabCorp"), alleging that its cytotechnologists were negligent in failing to identify abnormalities in Ms. Adams's ...
Adams v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14471 (11th Cir. July 29, 2014): Christina and Christopher Adams ("the Adamses") filed a lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America ("LabCorp"), alleging that its cytotechnologists were negligent in failing to …
Continue Reading

Requests for Admission (RFAs) — Party Whose Discovery Efforts Lead Adversary to Concede Fact First Denied “Makes the Proof,” Is Entitled to Rule 37(c)(2) Sanctions — Including Fees for 37(c)(2) Fee Application

McCarthy v. Ameritech Publishing, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15519 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014): Kathleen McCarthy filed suit against Ameritech Publishing, Inc. (API) and AT&T, her former employers, to recover damages for  [**2]  claims related to the August 2008 termination of her employment. The merits of those claims ...
McCarthy v. Ameritech Publishing, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15519 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2014): Kathleen McCarthy filed suit against Ameritech Publishing, Inc. (API) and AT&T, her former employers, to recover damages for  [**2]  claims related to the August 2008…
Continue Reading

RICO Violations Didn’t Cause Plaintiffs’ Loss of Property Where They Lacked the Funds to Cover Mortgage Payments or Taxes — Merely “Peripheral References” to Issue in Rule 50(a) Motion Fails to Preserve It

Uni-Rty Corp. v. Guangdon Building, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12478 (2d Cir. July 2, 2014): Plaintiffs-counterclaim-defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Uni-Rty Corp. and Golden Plaza Limited Partnership ("GPLP") (collectively, "plaintiffs") appeal from the January 16, 2013 amended judgment of the United States D ...
Uni-Rty Corp. v. Guangdon Building, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12478 (2d Cir. July 2, 2014): Plaintiffs-counterclaim-defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Uni-Rty Corp. and Golden Plaza Limited Partnership ("GPLP") (collectively, "plaintiffs") appeal from the January 16, 2013 amended judgment of the United States District…
Continue Reading

Rule 68 Offer of Judgment Exceeding Putative Class Representative’s Individual Claim Does Not Moot Class Action If Offer Is Made after Class Certification Motion Made

Tocco v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112492 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014): Rule 68 permits a defendant to "serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specific terms." Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). When an offer of judgment exceeds the amount the plaintiff could recover, the plaintiff's claim is m ...
Tocco v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112492 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014): Rule 68 permits a defendant to "serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specific terms." Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). When…
Continue Reading

Taxation of Costs: Video Deposition Editing, In-Court Technical Support, Equipment Rental Not Taxable under § 1920 (Circuit Split, New S.Ct. Case Unfavorable) — Demonstrative Boards Not Necessary

Fowler v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112540 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014): Defendants move the Court to review and tax two discrete costs disallowed by the Clerk: (1) exemplification costs related to video presentations used at trial and (2) fees for [*6]  deposition transcripts. Based on a de novo review of these ch ...
Fowler v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112540 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014): Defendants move the Court to review and tax two discrete costs disallowed by the Clerk: (1) exemplification costs related to video presentations used at trial …
Continue Reading

Securities — Satisfaction of Morrison’s 2-Part Test Is Necessary, But Not Sufficient, to Support Invocation of 10b-5 — If Application of 10b-5 Would Be Incompatible with Foreign Regulation, 10b-5 Inapt

Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings, SE,  2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15758 (2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2014): In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), the Supreme Court established that, by virtue of the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes, § 10(b) of the Sec ...
Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings, SE,  2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15758 (2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2014): In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), the Supreme Court established that, by virtue of the presumption…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Failure to Respond to Portions of Summary Judgment Motion Directed to Claims Plaintiff Choose to Abandon Is Not Sanctionable — Duty Is to Abandon Unsustainable Claims

Adams v. Austal, USA, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11318 (11th Cir. June 17, 2014): Defendant-Appellant Austal USA, LLC appeals the March 2, 2012 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denying Austal's motion for attorneys' fees and sanctions against Plaintiff-Appellee Gloria Sullivan and h ...
Adams v. Austal, USA, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11318 (11th Cir. June 17, 2014): Defendant-Appellant Austal USA, LLC appeals the March 2, 2012 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denying Austal's motion…
Continue Reading
Previous240241242243244245246Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Propoerty When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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

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