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

Recidivism and Fraudulent Joinder as Factors in Deciding Whether Sanctions Are Appropriate

Dunbar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5080 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013): The Wells Fargo parties filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, as well as under the district court's inherent authority to sanction attorneys for acting in bad faith or abusing the judicial process. The district court awarded ...
Dunbar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5080 (8th Cir. Mar. 14, 2013): The Wells Fargo parties filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, as well as under the district court’s…
Continue Reading

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Is Jurisdictional and Must Be Considered before Addressing Merits

Cook v. Baca, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4783(10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2013): In its dismissal order, the district court declined to consider whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied. Rooker-Feldman, however, "concerns a district court's subject-matter jurisdiction," Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 n* (2007), and must therefore ...
Cook v. Baca, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4783(10th Cir. Mar. 7, 2013): In its dismissal order, the district court declined to consider whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applied. Rooker-Feldman, however, “concerns a district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction,” Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S.…
Continue Reading

Veterans Affairs Department Subject to Inherent Power Sanction for Extrajudicial Conduct (Application of Concededly Invalid Rule) Contrary to Representations to Federal Circuit — Creative Alternative to Sanction Offered

Nat’l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5541 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2013): The National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. (NOVA) petitioned us to review a rule promulgated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The rule eliminated certain procedural and appellate rights for ...
Nat’l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5541 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2013): The National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. (NOVA) petitioned us to review a rule promulgated by the Department of…
Continue Reading

RICO — Complaint Conclusorily Alleging Control and Asserting a “Fanstastical Scheme” That “Defies Logic” Fails to State a Claim (Good Quote)

Petrosurance, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Ins. Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5277 (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2013): Plaintiff-Appellant Petrosurance, Inc. appeals from an August 31, 2012 judgment entered pursuant to a Memorandum and Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), dismissing this c ...
Petrosurance, Inc. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Ins. Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5277 (2d Cir. Mar. 18, 2013): Plaintiff-Appellant Petrosurance, Inc. appeals from an August 31, 2012 judgment entered pursuant to a Memorandum and Order of the United States District…
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Failure of Plaintiff’s Experts to Preserve Evidence before Defendant Knew of Claim Justifies Permissive Adverse Inference Instruction — Proper to Exclude Evidence Product Manufactured in China — No Reason to Sequester Experts

Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6609 (3d Cir. April 2, 2013): Appellant, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America ("Indemnity"), as subrogee of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District ("School District"), brought suit against Electrolux Home Products, Inc. ("Electrolux") alleging ...
Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6609 (3d Cir. April 2, 2013): Appellant, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America (“Indemnity”), as subrogee of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District (“School District”), brought…
Continue Reading

Additional Costs to Videotape Deposition Appropriately Taxed Where Objecting Party Ordered Recording and Prevailing Party, as a Result, Paid Some of the Cost

Pacificorp v. Nw. Pipeline GP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174593 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2012): 2. Videography for Deposition PacifiCorp next objects to costs for videography at the depositions of John Roscher and Ed Towes, which it argues was unnecessary. However, these depositions were taken by PacifiCorp and used primarily in PacifiC ...
Pacificorp v. Nw. Pipeline GP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174593 (D. Or. Dec. 10, 2012): 2. Videography for Deposition PacifiCorp next objects to costs for videography at the depositions of John Roscher and Ed Towes, which it argues was unnecessary.…
Continue Reading

Expert Opinion on Damages — Good Quotes — Forum State Rule Awarding Attorneys’ Fees to Prevailing Party Applies in Federal Court — Does Such a Forum State Rule Trump Contrary State Law Governing Decision? It Depends

Alaska Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4566 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2013): Several state law questions arise in this appeal, and [two] federal law questions, whether expert testimony should have been excluded under Daubert *** and whether Alaska "English Rule" attorneys fee awards [Alaska Civil Procedure Rul ...
Alaska Rent-a-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4566 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2013): Several state law questions arise in this appeal, and [two] federal law questions, whether expert testimony should have been excluded under Daubert…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Dismissal to Bar Refiling in State Court of Frivolous Claim Filed in Federal Court Lacking Jurisdiction — Absent Jurisdiction over Complaint, Counterclaim Must State Federal Jurisdiction — Sovereign Citizens’ Movement & Admiralty

El v. AmeriCredit Financial Servs., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5579 (7th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013): The plaintiff bought a used pickup truck in 2011 for $28,000 and financed the purchase by means of a six-year installment contract that specified an interest rate of 23.9 percent. The dealer who sold him the truck assigned the contract to AmeriCredit ...
El v. AmeriCredit Financial Servs., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5579 (7th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013): The plaintiff bought a used pickup truck in 2011 for $28,000 and financed the purchase by means of a six-year installment contract that specified an…
Continue Reading

Party Cannot Seek Expert Fees for Deposition Time of Expert Who Testifies for Free — Eight Factor Test to Determine Whether Expert Fee Request Is Reasonable — Inherent Power Sanctions for Invoice for Free Expert

Eastcott v. Hasselblad A/S, 892 F. Supp. 2d 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rakoff, J.): Contrary to the apparent view of plaintiff and his counsel, a legal forum is not the place to play a shell game. The opportunity for such shenanigans arose when, during the course of this patent infringement lawsuit, plaintiff John Eastcot ...
Eastcott v. Hasselblad A/S, 892 F. Supp. 2d 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Rakoff, J.): Contrary to the apparent view of plaintiff and his counsel, a legal forum is not the place to play a shell game. The opportunity for such shenanigans…
Continue Reading

SLUSA Displaces Class Actions Alleging Breach of Variable Universal Life Insurance Contracts Where Fraud Is Alleged But Not Does Not Displace Pure Breach of Contract Claims

Freeman Investments, LP v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 704 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2012): The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) precludes state law class actions that allege misrepresentation or fraudulent omission in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities. In this case we answer the question on ...
Freeman Investments, LP v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 704 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2012): The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) precludes state law class actions that allege misrepresentation or fraudulent omission in connection with the purchase or…
Continue Reading
Previous278279280281282283284Next

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