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

Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure Must be Provided for Treating Physician — Mere Production of Medical Records Insufficient — Rule 37(c)(1) Factors for Evaluating Substantial Justification and Harmless Error

Carrillo v. B&J Enters., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12435 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2013): Plaintiff appears to concede that her expert disclosures do not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). To the extent there is any question, the Court finds that neither the initial expert reports nor supplemental information provided by Plaintiff for proposed expe ...
Carrillo v. B&J Enters., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12435 (D. Nev. Jan. 29, 2013): Plaintiff appears to concede that her expert disclosures do not comply with Rule 26(a)(2)(B). To the extent there is any question, the Court finds that…
Continue Reading

Legal Malpractice Defendant May Implead Other Law Firms for the Client (and for the Parent Company of the Client) While Simultaneously Asserting a Comparative Negligence Defense against the Client

Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith LLP, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 402 (1st Dept. Jan. 24, 2013): This is a legal malpractice action in which defendant law firm brought third-party claims for contribution against three other law firms based on the allegation that they gave erroneous advice to plaintiff, either directly or through plain ...
Millennium Import, LLC v. Reed Smith LLP, 2013 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 402 (1st Dept. Jan. 24, 2013): This is a legal malpractice action in which defendant law firm brought third-party claims for contribution against three other law firms based…
Continue Reading

Standards for Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report under Rule 37(c)(1) — Standards for Abuse of Discretion Review — Internally Inconsistent and Unsupported Expert Testimony Excluded

Hunt v. CNH Am. LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2533 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2013): A. Exclusion of Holcomb's Supplemental Report Hunt contests the District Court's decision to exclude a supplemental expert report, submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), which was disclosed after the close of expert disco ...
Hunt v. CNH Am. LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2533 (2d Cir. Feb. 6, 2013): A. Exclusion of Holcomb’s Supplemental Report Hunt contests the District Court’s decision to exclude a supplemental expert report, submitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil…
Continue Reading

Diversity of Citizenship — Is a National Bank (N.A.) a Citizen Only of the State Designated in Its Charter or Also “Located” Where It Maintains Its Principal Place of Business? Circuit Split

Taber v. NDEX West, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185642 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2012): On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff Robin Taber ("Plaintiff") filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants NDEX West, LLC ("NDEX"), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), Federal National Mortgage Associations, a/k/a Fannie Mae ("Fanny Mae"), and Mortgage E ...
Taber v. NDEX West, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185642 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2012): On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff Robin Taber (“Plaintiff”) filed a Second Amended Complaint against Defendants NDEX West, LLC (“NDEX”), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”),…
Continue Reading

Standards Governing Abuse of Discretion Review and Rule 41(b) Dismissal for Disobeying a Court Order — Ninth Circuit Formulation

VF Elec., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1437 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2013) (unpublished): VF Electric, Inc. appeals from the district court's Order and Opinion dismissing its third amended complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We review a district court's "dismissal for failure to co ...
VF Elec., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1437 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2013) (unpublished): VF Electric, Inc. appeals from the district court’s Order and Opinion dismissing its third amended complaint and action with prejudice pursuant to Federal…
Continue Reading

Even If Witness Providing Expert Testimony Has an Interest in the Outcome That Can Be Characterized As Contingent (Here, a Patent Inventor), That Does Not Render the Expert’s Testimony Inadmissible

Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15287 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2013): Boston Scientific next seeks the preclusion of the testimony of Dr. Morton Mower, one of the inventors of the '119 patent technology, on the subject of infringement of the '119 patent.*** ... Boston Scientific argues ...
Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15287 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2013): Boston Scientific next seeks the preclusion of the testimony of Dr. Morton Mower, one of the inventors of the ‘119 patent technology,…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Protection: Joint Defense / Common Interest Rule — Second Circuit

Mitsui OSK v. Seamaster, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2013): ● “ The common interest doctrine does not provide for a privilege in itself; rather, it is an exception to the rules of waiver that apply when otherwise privileged information is shared with individuals who do not facially share in that privi ...
Mitsui OSK v. Seamaster, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9101 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2013): ● “ The common interest doctrine does not provide for a privilege in itself; rather, it is an exception to the rules of waiver that apply when…
Continue Reading

Telephone Call to Number Assigned to Business Is Self-Authenticating, But Not to Number Posted on Extinct Website —- Hearsay Excludable on Summary Judgment — Foreign Business Website Not Self-Authenticating under Rule 902(5)

Hansen v. PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2523 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013): Plaintiffs-Appellants Theodore L. Hansen, Interstate Energy Corp. and Triple M, L.L.C., appeal from the district court's judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee PT. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero) Tbk. ("BNI"). BNI is a banking corporation ...
Hansen v. PT Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2523 (10th Cir. Feb. 5, 2013): Plaintiffs-Appellants Theodore L. Hansen, Interstate Energy Corp. and Triple M, L.L.C., appeal from the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee PT. Bank…
Continue Reading

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
Previous284285286287288289290Next

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