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

Arbitration — Nonsignatories — Equitable Estoppel, Agency and Third-Party Beneficiary Theories Permitting Nonsignatory to Enforce Arbitration Agreement — Requirements of Each

Murphy v. DircecTV, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15580 (July 30, 2013): In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Supreme Court held that Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") preempts the State of California's rule rendering unenforceable--as unconscionable--arbitration provisions in consumer contracts that w ...
Murphy v. DircecTV, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15580 (July 30, 2013): In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), the Supreme Court held that Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts the State of California’s…
Continue Reading

Marital Communications and Attorney-Client Privileges — Waiver by Failing to Object to Pretrial Testimony — Waiver Need Not Be Knowing, Voluntary and Intentional, Just “Voluntary”

United States v. Brock, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15574 (7th Cir. July 30, 2013): A. The Marital Communications Privilege The marital communications privilege covers "information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship . . . ." Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 51 (198 ...
United States v. Brock, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15574 (7th Cir. July 30, 2013): A. The Marital Communications Privilege The marital communications privilege covers “information privately disclosed between husband and wife in the confidence of the marital relationship . .…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Extrajudicial (Pre-Suit) Misconduct — Expert Testimony Unneeded to Establish “Reckless Disregard” (Qui Tam Case) — Reasonably Foreseeable Intervening Forces Do Not Break Proximate Cause Chain

United States v. King-Vassel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17989 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013): After acquiring the medical records for N.B., a minor, Dr. Toby T. Watson initiated this qui tam False Claims Act suit against N.B's former treating psychiatrist, Dr. Jennifer King-Vassel. While in King-Vassel's care, N.B. received Medicaid assistance tha ...
United States v. King-Vassel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17989 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013): After acquiring the medical records for N.B., a minor, Dr. Toby T. Watson initiated this qui tam False Claims Act suit against N.B’s former treating psychiatrist,…
Continue Reading

Removal — § 1441 Does Not Permit Removal of Proceeding in State Agency, Only from State Courts — Circuit Split

Smith v. Detroit Entm’t, LLC, 919 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2013): Section 28 U.S.C. §1441 provides that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The magistrate judge determined tha ...
Smith v. Detroit Entm’t, LLC, 919 F. Supp. 2d 883 (E.D. Mich. 2013): Section 28 U.S.C. §1441 provides that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may…
Continue Reading

Challenge to Constitutional Authority of Bankruptcy Court to Enter a Final Judgment on a State-Law Claim under Stern v. Marshall under Article III § 1 Is Not Waivable — Circuit Split

Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17553 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013): This appeal is the most recent chapter in a decade-long saga spanning two circuits involving the debtor, Richard Sharif, and his judgment creditors, Wellness International Network, Ltd., Ralph Oats, and Cathy Oats (collectively, "WIN"). After ...
Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17553 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2013): This appeal is the most recent chapter in a decade-long saga spanning two circuits involving the debtor, Richard Sharif, and his judgment creditors, Wellness…
Continue Reading

§ 1983 Conspiracy Claims — Does the Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine Apply? — Personal Bias Exception

Drager v. Village of Bellwood, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119557 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2013): Defendants next argue that Plaintiff's conspiracy claim is barred under the "intra-corporate" conspiracy doctrine, which holds that a conspiracy cannot exist solely between members of the same entity. Mnyofu v. Bd. of Educ. of Rich Twp. High Sch. Dis ...
Drager v. Village of Bellwood, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119557 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2013): Defendants next argue that Plaintiff’s conspiracy claim is barred under the “intra-corporate” conspiracy doctrine, which holds that a conspiracy cannot exist solely between members of…
Continue Reading

What Is “Extraneous Evidence” within Rule 606(b), That a Juror May Attest to, to Impeach a Verdict? — May Juror Testimony about Dishonesty during Voir Dire Be Used to Impeach a Verdict? Circuit Split

Warger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013): Gregory Warger sued Randy Shauers to recover for injuries he sustained during a traffic accident. After a mistrial, the jury returned a verdict for Shauers. Warger subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court denied his m ...
Warger v. Shauers, 721 F.3d 606 (8th Cir. 2013): Gregory Warger sued Randy Shauers to recover for injuries he sustained during a traffic accident. After a mistrial, the jury returned a verdict for Shauers. Warger subsequently moved for judgment as…
Continue Reading

Puffery in Settlement Negotiations — Statements Regarding Damages Made in the Context of Settlement May Not Reliably Be Treated as Accurate Factual Representations (Good Quotes)

Richmond v. Gen. Nutrition Centers, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 3577 (PAE)(HBP), 2012 WL 762307 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2012): [T]he context of a settlement discussion, by its nature, is not one in which counsel's oral statement or demand may reliably be treated as an accurate factual representation. A settlement discussion is a negotiation, and a ...
Richmond v. Gen. Nutrition Centers, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 3577 (PAE)(HBP), 2012 WL 762307 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2012): [T]he context of a settlement discussion, by its nature, is not one in which counsel’s oral statement or demand may reliably be…
Continue Reading

Sovereign Immunity Bars an Inherent Power Monetary Sanction Against the Government — Lingering Question Whether Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed in Criminal Cases

United States v. Droganes, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17819 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013): This case arises from a longstanding dispute between Sam Droganes and the United States Government. Droganes is a fireworks dealer in northern Kentucky. In 2007, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) raided his business on ...
United States v. Droganes, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17819 (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013): This case arises from a longstanding dispute between Sam Droganes and the United States Government. Droganes is a fireworks dealer in northern Kentucky. In 2007, agents…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Attorneys’ Fees But No Adverse Inference Where Conduct Not Outrageous — Store Failed to Show Cameras Were Not Trained on Accident Spot — Summary Judgment Granted to Spoliator

Matteo v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14094 (2d Cir. July 12, 2013): Zora Matteo appeals from the district court's March 6, 2012 order awarding summary judgment to defendants Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl's Illinois, Inc. (collectively, "Kohl's"), and denying her request for an adverse inference instruc ...
Matteo v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14094 (2d Cir. July 12, 2013): Zora Matteo appeals from the district court’s March 6, 2012 order awarding summary judgment to defendants Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. and Kohl’s Illinois, Inc.…
Continue Reading
Previous266267268269270271272Next

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