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

Forum Non Conveniens — Less Deference Due a Foreign, as Opposed to a Domestic, Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum — Even If US Has an “Equal Access” Treaty with the Foreigner’s Country

Kisano Trade & Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24697 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2013): We first consider whether the District Court abused its discretion in affording plaintiffs' choice of forum a lesser degree of deference than would be accorded a domestic plaintiff. "Ordinarily, a strong presumption of conveni ...
Kisano Trade & Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24697 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2013): We first consider whether the District Court abused its discretion in affording plaintiffs' choice of forum a lesser degree of deference than would…
Continue Reading

Removal — Must Every Defendant Sign a Notice of Removal or Is One Signature Plus a Certification That All Others Consent Sufficient? Circuit Split

Ettlin v. Harris, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170526 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013): In a case involving multiple defendants, "[a]ll defendants must join in a removal petition." Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986). Although circuits are split as to what form a co-defendant's joinder in removal ...
Ettlin v. Harris, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170526 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013): In a case involving multiple defendants, "[a]ll defendants must join in a removal petition." Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 (9th Cir. 1986). Although …
Continue Reading

While Law of the Case Can Be Waived, the Mandate Rule — Requiring District Judge to Act in Accordance with Court of Appeals’ Mandate — Is Jurisdictional and Not Waivable — Circuit Split

  Rocho v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24271 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013): Next, LINA argues that once the previous panel of this Court affirmed the district court's judgment and issued its mandate, the subsequent district court proceedings violated the law of the case doctrine. Specifically, LINA invokes two ...
Rocho v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24271 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013): Next, LINA argues that once the previous panel of this Court affirmed the district court's judgment and issued its mandate, the subsequent…
Continue Reading

Legal Malpractice — New York’s 3-Year Statute of Limitations Accrues upon Injury, Not Discovery — Continuous Representation Exception Unsatisfied Where 4-Year Gap between Advice and Engagement to Defend IRS Attack on It

Landow v. Snow Becker Krauss, PC, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7654 (2d Dept. Nov. 20, 2013): On March 5, 2003, the defendants, Richard Reichler, Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., and Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, and Breitsone, LLP, allegedly advised the plaintiff in an opinion letter that his proposed sale of certain property would not result in ...
Landow v. Snow Becker Krauss, PC, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7654 (2d Dept. Nov. 20, 2013): On March 5, 2003, the defendants, Richard Reichler, Snow Becker Krauss, P.C., and Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, and Breitsone, LLP, allegedly advised the plaintiff…
Continue Reading

Experts — Improper Supplementation under Rule 26(e) — Factors for Assessing Whether Rule 16(f) Sanctions Should Issue — Harmless Error / Substantial Justification under Rule 37(c)(1) — Factors — Good Quote (Loophole)

Burger v. Excel Contractors, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153535 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2013): Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to damages for injuries sustained as the result of an automobile collision. *** Defendants' request an order striking the March 19, 2013 supplemental expert report (attached as exhibit B to Defs' motion ( ...
Burger v. Excel Contractors, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153535 (D. Nev. Oct. 25, 2013): Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to damages for injuries sustained as the result of an automobile collision. *** Defendants' request an order striking the March 19,…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions for Violation of Protective Order — Standards — Allocation between Client and Counsel — Delaying Production beyond, and Conducting Discovery after, Cut-Off Date Violates 16(f) — Good Quotes

  Rahbarian v. Cawley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171123 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013): The Court heard argument on Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Impose Sanctions, and to Obtain a Protective Order to Preserve Evidence, (ECF No. 59), on September 19, 2013. Cyrus Zal appeared for Plaintiffs, and David W ...
Rahbarian v. Cawley, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171123 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2013): The Court heard argument on Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery, to Impose Sanctions, and to Obtain a Protective Order to Preserve Evidence, (ECF No. 59), on September…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Forum Selection Clause Essentially Inviolable — Enforced via § 1404(a) or Forum Non Conveniens — Propriety of Venue under § 1406(a) or Rule 12(b)(3) Determined under § 1391 or Other Apt Venue Statute

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. District Court, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8775 (U.S. Dec. 3, 2013): The question in this case concerns the procedure that is available for a defendant in a civil case who seeks to enforce a forum-selection clause. We reject petitioner's argument that such a clause may be enforced by a motion to ...
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. District Court, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 8775 (U.S. Dec. 3, 2013): The question in this case concerns the procedure that is available for a defendant in a civil case who seeks to enforce a forum-selection …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Penal vs. Issue-Related — Differing Standards & Burdens — Due Process Satisfied by Court Warnings at Hearing — What theRule 26(e)(1) Duty to Correct Requires — Failure to Identify What Is Being Corrected Violates Duty

Johnson v. BAE Sys., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170092 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2013): This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff's Opposition, and Defendants' Reply. The defendants ask this Court to impose sanctions pursuant to its inherent power because the plaintiff falsified med ...
Johnson v. BAE Sys., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170092 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 2013): This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff's Opposition, and Defendants' Reply. The defendants ask this Court to impose sanctions pursuant to …
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Waiver of Right to Arbitrate — Factors — “The Key to a Waiver Analysis Is Prejudice” (Good Quote)

Tech. in P’ship v. Rudin, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19146 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2013): Federal policy strongly favors arbitration and waiver of a right to arbitrate is not lightly inferred, but a party can waive its right to arbitration "when it engages in protracted litigation that prejudices the opposing party."
Tech. in P’ship v. Rudin, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19146 (2d Cir. Sept. 17, 2013): Federal policy strongly favors arbitration and waiver of a right to arbitrate is not lightly inferred, but a party can waive its right to arbitration …
Continue Reading

Nationwide Injunction Should Not Issue If Circuit Split Exists

Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. BarryDiller Content Sys., PLC, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1141-42 (C.D. Cal. 2012): B. Geographical Reach of Injunction Where Circuit Split Present Courts should not issue nationwide injunctions where the injunction would not issue under the law of another circuit.
Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. BarryDiller Content Sys., PLC, 915 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1141-42 (C.D. Cal. 2012): B. Geographical Reach of Injunction Where Circuit Split Present Courts should not issue nationwide injunctions where the injunction would not issue under …
Continue Reading
Previous255256257258259260261Next

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