Complex Lit Blog

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…

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,…

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. §§ ...

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…

Authentication of GPS and Google Earth Evidence — No Expert Required — Knowledgeable, Trained Technician Sufficient — No Reversible Error If Authenticating Evidence Follows, Rather Than Precedes, Introduction into Evidence

United States v. Espinal-Almeida, 699 F.3d 588 (1st Cir. 2012): An undercover United States Customs Task Force operation involving efforts on land, at sea, and in the air, ended with the arrests of the defendants, Saturnino Tatis-Núñez ("Tatis"), César Hernández-De la Rosa ("Hernández"), Carlos Espinal-Almeida ("Espinal"), and Jaco ...

Issues Not Raised in Appellate Brief, Even Pro Se, Waived — Meaning of “Abuse of Discretion” in Second Circuit

Chien v. BarronCapital Advisors, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26813 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2012): "We review an award of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion." Lawrence v. Richman Grp. of CT LLC, 620 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990)). "An 'abuse of discretion' o ...

Chien v. BarronCapital Advisors, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26813 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2012): “We review an award of Rule 11 sanctions for abuse of discretion.” Lawrence v. Richman Grp. of CT LLC, 620 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir.…

RICO — Mail Fraud — Proving Reliance Remains Essential Where It Is Integral to Plaintiff’s Theory of Causation

Hoffman v. Zenith Ins. Co., 487 F. App’x 365 (9th Cir. 2012): A RICO plaintiff must establish standing to sue under RICO's private right of action, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), by demonstrating "that the defendants' alleged misconduct proximately caused [the plaintiffs'] injury." Sosa v. DIRECTV, Inc., 437 F.3d 923, 941 (9th Cir. 2006) (inte ...

Hoffman v. Zenith Ins. Co., 487 F. App’x 365 (9th Cir. 2012): A RICO plaintiff must establish standing to sue under RICO’s private right of action, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), by demonstrating “that the defendants’ alleged misconduct proximately caused [the…

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 ...

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 ...

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…

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

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

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

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)

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

Authentication of GPS and Google Earth Evidence — No Expert Required — Knowledgeable, Trained Technician Sufficient — No Reversible Error If Authenticating Evidence Follows, Rather Than Precedes, Introduction into Evidence

Issues Not Raised in Appellate Brief, Even Pro Se, Waived — Meaning of “Abuse of Discretion” in Second Circuit

RICO — Mail Fraud — Proving Reliance Remains Essential Where It Is Integral to Plaintiff’s Theory of Causation

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

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

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

Recent Posts

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

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

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)

Archives

New York Office