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
Previous285286287288289290291Next

Recent Posts

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)

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

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