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

Circumstantial Authentication of Texts and Emails (Rule 901(b)(4))—Indiana Adopts Tienda / Parker Approach—For Voice ID (R. 901(b)(5)), Only “Minimal Familiarity” Required—All Decided under 104(a)—Strictures of R. 701 Inapt

Pavlovich v. State, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 127 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2014): The second issue is whether the trial court erroneously admitted the text and email communications between Pugh and Detective Odier and the  [*12] 2662 number and the "golfnutmi" email address while allowing the State to identify th ...
Pavlovich v. State, 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 127 (Ind. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2014): The second issue is whether the trial court erroneously admitted the text and email communications between Pugh and Detective Odier and the  [*12] 2662 number and…
Continue Reading

Printout Offered to Show What Appears on Website ≠ Hearsay — 403 Unfair Prejudice Prong “Unnecessary and Useless” in Bench Trial — Internet Search Results or Snippets without Context May Be of Minimal Relevance — Good Quotes

Invisible Fences, Inc. v. Fido’s Fences, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16663 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014): The Court finds the following from Foreword Magazine, Inc. v. OverDrive, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-1144, 2011 WL 5169384, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31, 2011)persuasive: "[T]hese exhibits [screen shots of websites] are o ...
Invisible Fences, Inc. v. Fido’s Fences, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16663 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 11, 2014): The Court finds the following from Foreword Magazine, Inc. v. OverDrive, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-1144, 2011 WL 5169384, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 31,…
Continue Reading

Damages Expert May Rely on the Opinions of Other Experts to Form Independent Damages Conclusions (Good Quote)

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd.,  2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135208 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2013): [T]he Court has already discussed the propriety of Ms. Lawton's price premium and excess profits analysis. [S]he based her reasonable royalty opinion on the opinion of Dr. Bajorek that the technology became " ...
Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd.,  2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135208 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 23, 2013): [T]he Court has already discussed the propriety of Ms. Lawton's price premium and excess profits analysis. [S]he based her reasonable royalty opinion …
Continue Reading

RICO—PSLRA Bars Claim Based on Scheme to Lend Money for Purpose of Buying Securities—Selling Securities Was a Necessary Component of the Scheme and Integral to the Relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants—In Connection With Factors

Calderón Serra v. Banco Santander P.R., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5554 (1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2014): Plaintiffs press a RICO claim against their bank and others over what they claim was an unlawful scheme to lend plaintiffs money in violation of federal margin requirements limiting the extent to which securities can be used as collate ...
Calderón Serra v. Banco Santander P.R., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5554 (1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2014): Plaintiffs press a RICO claim against their bank and others over what they claim was an unlawful scheme to lend plaintiffs money in violation …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Not Error to Decline Spoliation Instruction and Instead Permit Aggrieved Party to Argue That Missing Records Would Have Been Favorable — Violation of Regulation, As Opposed to Statute, ≠ Negligence Per Se

Mann v. Redman Van & Storage Co., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21047 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2013): The Manns, Plaintiffs-Appellants, appeal from a district court's denial of their Rule 59 motion for a new trial following a jury verdict in Defendant-Appellee Redman's favor. The Manns and defendant Redman's employee, Anderson, we ...
Mann v. Redman Van & Storage Co., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21047 (9th Cir. Oct. 17, 2013): The Manns, Plaintiffs-Appellants, appeal from a district court's denial of their Rule 59 motion for a new trial following a jury verdict…
Continue Reading

28 USC § 1782 — The Lingering Uncertainty as to Whether International Arbitration Constitutes a Foreign or International Tribunal under the Statute

GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 419 (7th Cir. 2014): GEA must have known that Flex-N-Gate could have asked the district judge to provide evidence to "a foreign or international tribunal," as district judges are authorized to do by 28 U.S.C. § 1782.... The German panel conducting the arbitration bet ...
GEA Group AG v. Flex-N-Gate Corp., 740 F.3d 411, 419 (7th Cir. 2014): GEA must have known that Flex-N-Gate could have asked the district judge to provide evidence to "a foreign or international tribunal," as district judges are authorized to…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — No Need for Evidentiary Hearing to Satisfy Due Process Where Complainant Cannot Identify Any Evidence It Would Have Presented — Post-Dismissal Jurisdiction to Impose Inherent Power Sanctions

Haviland v. Specter, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5238 (3d. Cir. Mar. 20, 2014): Neil Sedaka's observation that "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do" rings true whether the separation relates to lovers or lawyers. This case concerns the latter. Appellant Donald Haviland is a lawyer formerly employed by Kline & Specter, P.C. ...
Haviland v. Specter, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5238 (3d. Cir. Mar. 20, 2014): Neil Sedaka's observation that "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do" rings true whether the separation relates to lovers or lawyers. This case concerns the latter. Appellant Donald…
Continue Reading

Juror’s Facebook Email to Witness during Trial Requires Remand — Repeated, Broad Social Media Instructions Needed Multiple Times in all Trials — Good Quotes on Social Media and Jury Trials

  State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. 2013): This appeal concerns the appropriate response when a trial court learns during a jury's deliberations that a juror exchanged Facebook messages with one of the State's witnesses during the trial. A criminal court in Davidson County declined the defe ...
State v. Smith, 418 S.W.3d 38 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. 2013): This appeal concerns the appropriate response when a trial court learns during a jury's deliberations that a juror exchanged Facebook messages with one of the State's witnesses during the trial…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782 — No Abuse of Discretion to Deny Discovery That Foreign Tribunal Has Previously Ruled Irrelevant — § 1782 Orders Are Final and Immediately Appealable under § 1291

Astonics Advanced Elec. Sys. Corp. v. Lufthansa Technik AG, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014): Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corporation (AES) filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the Western  [*2] District of Washington seeking discovery from Lufthansa Technik AG (Lufthansa) for use in ...
Astonics Advanced Elec. Sys. Corp. v. Lufthansa Technik AG, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4322 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014): Astronics Advanced Electronic Systems Corporation (AES) filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the Western  [*2] District of Washington…
Continue Reading

Does a Putative Class Plaintiff Have Standing to Sue on Behalf of Consumers Who Purchased Similar But Not Identical Products? Circuit Split

Vasic v. Patent health, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33181 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2014): First, Defendants contend Plaintiff does not have standing for any claims based on the Fast-Acting Trigosamine Product because Plaintiff never purchased this product. In response, Plaintiff argues that he can assert claims on behalf of the class based ...
Vasic v. Patent health, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33181 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 10, 2014): First, Defendants contend Plaintiff does not have standing for any claims based on the Fast-Acting Trigosamine Product because Plaintiff never purchased this product. In response,…
Continue Reading
Previous244245246247248249250Next

Recent Posts

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

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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