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

Sanctions — No Reversible Error in Sanctioning Counsel under Rule 11 for Statements at Trial Not Advocating Prior Written Submission Where Conduct Clearly Sanctionable under Inherent Power

Balerna v. Gilberti, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4069 (1st Cir. Feb. 27, 2013): Finally, Coppola makes a blanket challenge to his admonishment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b): While the court cited Coppola's conduct at trial as the reason for his admonishment, Rule 11(b) allows sanctions only for misconduct in presenting "a ple ...
Balerna v. Gilberti, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4069 (1st Cir. Feb. 27, 2013): Finally, Coppola makes a blanket challenge to his admonishment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b): While the court cited Coppola’s conduct at trial as the reason…
Continue Reading

Inadmissibility of Bankruptcy Examiner’s Report

In re Refco Inc. Secs. Litig., (Krys v. Sugrue), No. 07-MD-1902 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2013) (Report and Recommendation of Special Master Daniel J. Capra): [A] Bankruptcy Examiner’s report is hearsay when offered, as here, to prove the truth of the facts and conclusions propounded in it. And courts routinely find that there is no hear ...
In re Refco Inc. Secs. Litig., (Krys v. Sugrue), No. 07-MD-1902 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2013) (Report and Recommendation of Special Master Daniel J. Capra): [A] Bankruptcy Examiner’s report is hearsay when offered, as here, to prove the truth of the…
Continue Reading

Admissibility of Privilege Logs

Siemens v. Seagate Technology, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132522 (C.D. Cal. April 27, 2009): a. Admissibility of the Privilege Logs In conjunction with its argument regarding the joint invention of Parkin and Heim, Siemens argues that the Court erred in admitting the IBM privilege logs (Tr. Exhibits 756 and 757) over Siemens ...
Siemens v. Seagate Technology, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132522 (C.D. Cal. April 27, 2009): a. Admissibility of the Privilege Logs In conjunction with its argument regarding the joint invention of Parkin and Heim, Siemens argues that the Court erred in…
Continue Reading

Expert Discovery — Notes, Outlines, Lists, Letters, Emails, and Memoranda Prepared by Expert or Non-Attorney Concerning Draft Report Are Not Protected under 2010 Amendments

Republic of Ecuador v. Bjorkman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 909 (D. Colo. Jan. 3, 2013): Respondents contend that, following the December 7, 2012 production, they continue to withhold (1) outlines of draft reports; (2) memoranda addressed to or from an attorney; (3) email communications copying an attorney but addressing that attorney direct ...
Republic of Ecuador v. Bjorkman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 909 (D. Colo. Jan. 3, 2013): Respondents contend that, following the December 7, 2012 production, they continue to withhold (1) outlines of draft reports; (2) memoranda addressed to or from an…
Continue Reading

Is an Appeal Bond Limited to the Costs Enumerated in Fed.R.App.P. 39(e) or May It Include Attorneys’ Fees? — Circuit Split — Factors in Determining Whether Appeal Bond Is Needed

Heekin v. Anthem, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26700 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2013): Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 states: "In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal." Rule 7 exists to protect the rights of ...
Heekin v. Anthem, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26700 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2013): Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 states: “In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security…
Continue Reading

Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Like Attorney-Client Privilege, Survives Death of Privilege Holder

Awalt v. Marketti, 287 F.R.D. 409 (N.D. Ill. 2012): A threshold issue of whether Mrs. Awalt can assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of her deceased husband arises. Whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient, or is otherwise affected by the patient's death, is a matter that has not ...
Awalt v. Marketti, 287 F.R.D. 409 (N.D. Ill. 2012): A threshold issue of whether Mrs. Awalt can assert the psychotherapist-patient privilege on behalf of her deceased husband arises. Whether the psychotherapist-patient privilege survives the death of the patient, or is…
Continue Reading

Securities — Materiality Need Not Be Proved at Class Certification Stage — Judicial Admissions in Pleadings, Pretrial Orders and Stipulations Are Conclusively Binding

Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1862 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013): The issue presented concerns the requirement stated in Rule 23(b)(3) that "the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." Amgen contends that to meet the predominance req ...
Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1862 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2013): The issue presented concerns the requirement stated in Rule 23(b)(3) that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over…
Continue Reading

Dismissal Sanction — Third Circuit’s Six-Factor Test That Must Be Applied before Dismissing a Case Is Inapplicable after Trial and Verdict — But Dismissal Still Sanction of Last Resort

Knoll v. City of Allentown, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3647 (3d Cir. Feb. 21, 2013): In Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), we held that a district court must consider six factors before it may dismiss a case as a sanction before trial on the merits. This appeal requires us to decide whether Poulis applies i ...
Knoll v. City of Allentown, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3647 (3d Cir. Feb. 21, 2013): In Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984), we held that a district court must consider six factors…
Continue Reading

Juridical Link Doctrine as Basis for Standing in Class Actions — Circuit Split

Reyes v. Julia Place Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15356 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2013): Plaintiff asserts that the Juridical Link Doctrine gives her standing to bring claims on behalf of the class against defendants from whom she has not sustained a direct injury.... The doctrine is premised on the idea that the ...
Reyes v. Julia Place Condominiums Homeowners Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15356 (E.D. La. Feb. 5, 2013): Plaintiff asserts that the Juridical Link Doctrine gives her standing to bring claims on behalf of the class against defendants from whom she…
Continue Reading
Previous283284285286287288289Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

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