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

Examined Party (i.e., Plaintiff) Must Show Exceptional Circumstances to Depose Non-Testifying Physician Who Performs Rule 35 Examination (Caselaw Split) — Mere Fact a Testifying Physician References Non-Testifier’s Report Not Enough

Downs v. River City Group, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14018 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2013): Rule 35 governs physical and mental examinations in cases where a party's physical or mental condition is at issue. This rule provides that the party who moved for such an examination must provide a copy of the examiner's report which contains the examin ...
Downs v. River City Group, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14018 (D. Nev. Feb. 1, 2013): Rule 35 governs physical and mental examinations in cases where a party’s physical or mental condition is at issue. This rule provides that the…
Continue Reading

Passing Reference to Issue in Appellate Brief Waives It for Failure of Argument — Liberal Construction of Pro Se Pleadings — Disregard of Court Order Justifies Rule 41(b) Dismissal

Levinson v. WEDU-TV, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013): We review dismissals for failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for abuse of discretion. Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d 1533, 1535 (11th Cir. 1985). If a plaintiff fails to comply with a court order, this Circuit has held that a di ...
Levinson v. WEDU-TV, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2242 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013): We review dismissals for failure to comply with a court order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), for abuse of discretion. Goforth v. Owens, 766 F.2d…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Dismissal, Adverse Inference, Disclosure to Jury Inapt Where Adulterated Evidence Was Directed to Issues Ruled Substantively Irrelevant — Eleventh Circuit Sanctions Dismissal Standards

SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. v. United Guaranty Residential Ins. Co. of N.C., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2349 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013): SunTrust Mortgage makes mortgage loans on real property. At the heart of this dispute are "IOF Combo 100 Loans," certain second lien loans with an interest-only option. In 1998, SunTrust Mortgage and United ...
SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. v. United Guaranty Residential Ins. Co. of N.C., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2349 (4th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013): SunTrust Mortgage makes mortgage loans on real property. At the heart of this dispute are “IOF Combo 100 Loans,”…
Continue Reading

New York Legal Malpractice Standards — Shifting Burdens on Summary Judgment

Valley Ventures, LLC v. Joseph J. Haspel, PLLC, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 466 (2d Dept. Jan. 30, 2013): "In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary reasonable skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession and that ...
Valley Ventures, LLC v. Joseph J. Haspel, PLLC, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 466 (2d Dept. Jan. 30, 2013): “In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the attorney failed to exercise the ordinary…
Continue Reading

Sanctions —Failure to File Reply Brief as Evidence of Frivolousness — “Close Call” Ruling by District Court as Notice of Frivolousness of Appeal — § 1927 and FRAP 38

Scherer v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25516 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, we have discretion to impose "costs, expenses, and attorney fees" personally on an attorney "who . . . multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously." Waeschle v. Dragovic, 687 F.3d 292, 296 (6th Cir. 201 ...
Scherer v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25516 (6th Cir. Dec. 11, 2012): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, we have discretion to impose “costs, expenses, and attorney fees” personally on an attorney “who . . .…
Continue Reading

Court, Not Arbitrator, Should Decide Whether Signatory Agreed to Arbitrate Arbitrability with Non-Signatory — Irrelevant That Agreement States Arbitrator to Decide Because Non-Signatory Not a Party — Equitable Estoppel as Basis to Compel Arbitration

Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2090 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2013): Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively "Toyota" or "Defendants") seek review of the district court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration. The district court held that Toyota, a nonsignatory to several agreement ...
Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2090 (9th Cir. Jan. 30, 2013): Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (collectively “Toyota” or “Defendants”) seek review of the district court’s denial of their motion to compel…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Eighth Adopts Requirement That District Court Make Explicit Findings of Bad Faith and Prejudice before It May Issue Adverse Inference Instruction

Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 917 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2013): Hallmark Cards, Inc. ("Hallmark") sued its former employee, Janet Murley, for a breach of the parties' separation agreement and won a $860,000 jury verdict on its breach of contract claim. The district court denied Murley's motion for a new trial. Murley ...
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Murley, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 917 (8th Cir. Jan. 15, 2013): Hallmark Cards, Inc. (“Hallmark”) sued its former employee, Janet Murley, for a breach of the parties’ separation agreement and won a $860,000 jury verdict on…
Continue Reading

Joint Defense / Common Interest — When the Common Interest Must Exist — Elements of Advice of Counsel Defense— Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege vs. Waiver of Work Product Protection

SEC v. Reserve Mgmt. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147723 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012): ● “The common interest rule is concerned with the relationship between the transferor and the transferee at the time that the confidential information is disclosed. The fact that the parties’ interests have diverged over the course of t ...
SEC v. Reserve Mgmt. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147723 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012): ● “The common interest rule is concerned with the relationship between the transferor and the transferee at the time that the confidential information is disclosed. The…
Continue Reading

Federal Common Law, Not State Law, Provides the Meaning of “Arbitration” in the Federal Arbitration Act — Circuit Split

Bakoss v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1527 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2013): The parties entered into a Certificate of Insurance ("Certificate"), which they agree is an enforceable contract. Bakoss, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110834, 2011 WL 4529668, at *7. The Certificate provided for the payment of a benefit to Bakoss in th ...
Bakoss v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1527 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2013): The parties entered into a Certificate of Insurance (“Certificate”), which they agree is an enforceable contract. Bakoss, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110834, 2011 WL…
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Permissive Adverse Inference Instruction Typically Appropriate for Negligent Destruction of Evidence Where Opponent Not Denied Ability to Make or Defend Its Case — Severity of Sanction Should Correspond to Degree of Fault

Arch Ins. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26464 (6th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012): This case arises out of a fire that occurred at Montgomery County Fire Station 1 in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, on September 17, 2007. Plaintiff Montgomery County Fire Protection District 1 was compensated for the resulting property damage by its insura ...
Arch Ins. Co. v. Broan-Nutone, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26464 (6th Cir. Dec. 21, 2012): This case arises out of a fire that occurred at Montgomery County Fire Station 1 in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky, on September 17, 2007. Plaintiff…
Continue Reading
Previous284285286287288289290Next

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