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 — While Civil Contempt Cannot Be Imposed in The Absence of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, a $10,000 Penalty for Disregard of Court Order Is Permissible — Failure of Due Process to Impose Penalty without Warning

Tellado v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2817 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013): This appeal is from the District Court's order to cancel a mortgage loan made by IndyMac Bank, FSB, to Jose and Maria Tellado. After IndyMac failed and was placed into receivership, with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as its receiver, ...
Tellado v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2817 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013): This appeal is from the District Court’s order to cancel a mortgage loan made by IndyMac Bank, FSB, to Jose and Maria Tellado. After IndyMac…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Error to Award Attorneys’ Fees for Cost of Replying to Submission That Was Invited by Court — Motion for Sanctions against Client Does Not Afford Notice That Counsel May Be Sanctioned

Mantell v. Chassman, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3717 (2d Cir. Feb. 20, 2013): A. The October 2011 Sanction Rule 37(a)(5) provides that, if (1) a district court grants a Rule 37(a) motion to compel discovery or disclosure, or (2) disclosure or the requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the "court must, after gi ...
Mantell v. Chassman, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3717 (2d Cir. Feb. 20, 2013): A. The October 2011 Sanction Rule 37(a)(5) provides that, if (1) a district court grants a Rule 37(a) motion to compel discovery or disclosure, or (2) disclosure…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Evident Partiality and Undue Means as Grounds to Vacate Arbitration Award

NGC Network Asia, LLC v. Pac Pacific Group Int’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013): a. Evident Partiality PPGI insists that the District Court should have vacated the arbitration award because the arbitrator exhibited "evident partiality." An arbitrator is disqualified under that standard "o ...
NGC Network Asia, LLC v. Pac Pacific Group Int’l, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2802 (2d Cir. Feb. 11, 2013): a. Evident Partiality PPGI insists that the District Court should have vacated the arbitration award because the arbitrator exhibited “evident…
Continue Reading

When Class Counsel’s Misconduct Requires Denial of Certification — Ethical Standards — “Only the Most Egregious Misconduct”

Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 501 (7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013): The Ashford Gear litigation was the first to consider whether counsels' misconduct required denial of class certification. Like McKnight here, the defendant in Ashford Gear opposed class certification, arguing the same misconduct that Mc ...
Reliable Money Order, Inc. v. McKnight Sales Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 501 (7th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013): The Ashford Gear litigation was the first to consider whether counsels’ misconduct required denial of class certification. Like McKnight here, the defendant…
Continue Reading

Certain Purely Legal Rulings, Including Sanctions Rulings, May Be Subject to Abuse of Discretion Review

United States v. Gonza-Les-Flores, 701 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2012): On June 14, 2011, two days before Gonzales-Flores's jury trial on these charges was scheduled to begin, the government informed his counsel that it intended to call three expert witnesses. Gonzales-Flores's counsel filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the witnesses' ...
United States v. Gonza-Les-Flores, 701 F.3d 112 (4th Cir. 2012): On June 14, 2011, two days before Gonzales-Flores’s jury trial on these charges was scheduled to begin, the government informed his counsel that it intended to call three expert witnesses.…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Lingering Circuit Split over Viability of Manifest Disregard — Sixth Circuit’s Take

Schafer v. Multiband Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22057 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2013): Prior to Hall Street, the circuits unanimously recognized "manifest disregard" as a ground for vacatur. Since, however, the circuits have split over whether manifest disregard survives. See generally Leigh F. Gill, Note, Manifest Disregard After ...
Schafer v. Multiband Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22057 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19, 2013): Prior to Hall Street, the circuits unanimously recognized “manifest disregard” as a ground for vacatur. Since, however, the circuits have split over whether manifest disregard survives.…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — No Federal Jurisdiction Exists over State Court Legal Malpractice Claims Arising out of Patent Matters, Except Perhaps Rarely

Gunn v. Minton, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1612 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2013): Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases "arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents." 28 U. S. C. §1338(a). The question presented is whether a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in the handling of a patent case must be brought in federal court. ...
Gunn v. Minton, 2013 U.S. LEXIS 1612 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2013): Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases “arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” 28 U. S. C. §1338(a). The question presented is whether a state law…
Continue Reading

Article III Standing May Exist Despite Absence of Proximate Cause — Injury May Still Be Sufficiently Traceable to Defendant’s Conduct — ATA Imposes Same Causation Standard as RICO and Clayton Act

Rothstein v. - UBS AG, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3244 (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2013): Plaintiffs Rachel Rothstein et al. appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jed S. Rakoff, Judge, dismissing their action brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act ("ATA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq., against defe ...
Rothstein v. – UBS AG, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3244 (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2013): Plaintiffs Rachel Rothstein et al. appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jed S. Rakoff,…
Continue Reading

Final Argument — Are Golden Rule Arguments Improper If Directed to Liability Instead of Damages? — Circuit Split — D.C. Circuit Says They Are Improper — Send-a-Message Final Argument Sometimes OK — Duty to Play by the Rules (Good Quote)

Caudle v. District of Columbia, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3213 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2013): Appellees Frazier Caudle, Nikeith Goins, William James, Sholanda Miller and Donald Smalls (collectively, appellees) sued the District of Columbia (District), their employer, for retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ ...
Caudle v. District of Columbia, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3213 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 15, 2013): Appellees Frazier Caudle, Nikeith Goins, William James, Sholanda Miller and Donald Smalls (collectively, appellees) sued the District of Columbia (District), their employer, for retaliation under…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — District Court’s Use of Equitable Estoppel to Compel Arbitration with Non-Signatory Is Reviewed De Novo — Mere Allegation of Conspiracy Insufficient to Trigger Equitable Estoppel — Intertwining of Claim & Contract Key

In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2013): Appellants Blue Goose Super Market, Inc. ("Blue Goose"), Millennium Operations, Inc. ("Millennium"), and King Cole Foods, Inc. ("King Cole") all have supply and arbitration agreements with Appellee SuperValu, Inc. ("SuperValu") ...
In re: Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2949 (2d Cir. Feb. 13, 2013): Appellants Blue Goose Super Market, Inc. (“Blue Goose”), Millennium Operations, Inc. (“Millennium”), and King Cole Foods, Inc. (“King Cole”) all have supply and…
Continue Reading
Previous283284285286287288289Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

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)

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