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

Legal Malpractice and Choice of Law — A State Has a Paramount Interest in Regulating Lawyers Practicing within Its Borders — Elements of Judicial Estoppel (Majority Rule) and Law of the Case Doctrine — Law Governing Claim Governs Affirmative Defenses

Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, LLC v. Shapiro, 857 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2012): B. Choice of Law Issues The Receiver argues that the claims against the Law Firm Defendants are controlled by the laws of their respective domiciles, such that New York law governs the Certilman Defendants, Connecticut law go ...
Cobalt Multifamily Investors I, LLC v. Shapiro, 857 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2012): B. Choice of Law Issues The Receiver argues that the claims against the Law Firm Defendants are controlled by the laws of their respective domiciles, such…
Continue Reading

Prudential vs. Constitutional Standing — Circuit Split as to Whether Prudential Standing Can Be Waived — Prudential Standing Principles

G&S Holdings LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19728 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2012): There are both constitutional and prudential limitations on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Under Article III of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the courts is limited to claim ...
G&S Holdings LLC v. Continental Cas. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19728 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2012): There are both constitutional and prudential limitations on the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Under…
Continue Reading

No Spoliation Inference Where Evidence “has been lost or accidentally destroyed, or where the failure to produce it is otherwise properly accounted for”

Felix v. GMS, Zallie Holdings, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21075 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2012): B. Spoliation Felix also argues that the District Court erred in denying her re-quest for a spoliation inference based on GMS's failure to provide security camera footage showing her fall. GMS had security cameras operating through ...
Felix v. GMS, Zallie Holdings, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21075 (3d Cir. Oct. 11, 2012): B. Spoliation Felix also argues that the District Court erred in denying her re-quest for a spoliation inference based on GMS’s failure to provide…
Continue Reading

Emails as Business Records — Business Duty Requirement

Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Leeds, 856 F. Supp. 2d 580 (W.D.N.Y. 2012): H. Emails from Non-parties Defendants object to another forty-three exhibits that are copies of emails from non-parties. Defendants contend that these are not relevant and that they are inadmissible hearsay. Plaintiffs seek to admit ...
Beechwood Restorative Care Center v. Leeds, 856 F. Supp. 2d 580 (W.D.N.Y. 2012): H. Emails from Non-parties Defendants object to another forty-three exhibits that are copies of emails from non-parties. Defendants contend that these are not relevant and that they…
Continue Reading

New Article Discussing Problems in the Federal Civil Rulemaking Process

A new article addressing some issues I see with rulemakers’ relentlessly tweaking the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and simultaneously not addressing some major problems that need attention can be accessed here: An Instinct for the Capillar ...
A new article addressing some issues I see with rulemakers’ relentlessly tweaking the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and simultaneously not addressing some major problems that need attention can be accessed here: An Instinct for the Capillary. The article…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction Extends to Legal Malpractice Claim That Requires Plaintiff to Prove That No Violation of the Federal Securities Laws Occurred in Order to Establish Causation

Reserve Mgmt. Co. v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137682 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012): Plaintiff RMCI served as the investment advisor for the Reserve Primary Fund ("the Fund"), a money market fund that, prior to September 2008, held approximately $62.5 billion in assets. (Cmplt. ¶ 2) From July 2002 through Septembe ...
Reserve Mgmt. Co. v. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137682 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2012): Plaintiff RMCI served as the investment advisor for the Reserve Primary Fund (“the Fund”), a money market fund that, prior to September…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Can Arbitrators Compel Pre-Hearing Document Discovery from Third Parties? Circuit Split

McGreal v. AT&T Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140686 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2012): Footnote 7. The Circuits are split as to whether the FAA authorizes arbitrators to compel pre-hearing document discovery from third parties. The Sixth and Eighth Circuits have held that such power is implicit in the FAA's grant of power to compel d ...
McGreal v. AT&T Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140686 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2012): Footnote 7. The Circuits are split as to whether the FAA authorizes arbitrators to compel pre-hearing document discovery from third parties. The Sixth and Eighth Circuits…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Negligence Suffices for, But Does Not Require, Adverse Inference in Sixth Circuit — When Sanctions on a Party May Be Apt for Third Party Spoliation = Case-by-Case Determination

Adkins v. Wolever, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): This appeal concerns whether Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth Adkins was entitled to an adverse inference instruction because video and photographic evidence relating to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim against Defendant-Appellee Basil Wolever was lost by Ioni ...
Adkins v. Wolever, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18313 (6th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): This appeal concerns whether Plaintiff-Appellant Kenneth Adkins was entitled to an adverse inference instruction because video and photographic evidence relating to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive…
Continue Reading

Experts — While Conclusory Application of Daubert Is Insufficient to Trigger Deferential Appellate Review, Brief but Informed Application OK — “A Daubert Inquiry Is Not Designed to Have the District Judge Take the Place of the Jury”—Good Quotes

Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012): This appeal arose from an accident at a steel rolling mill that permanently disabled one of the workers there. The circumstances of that accident were unusual. Industrial grease was propelled in a jet with enough energy to penetrate and pass through the human body like a bullet. That ...
Lapsley v. Xtek, Inc., 689 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012): This appeal arose from an accident at a steel rolling mill that permanently disabled one of the workers there. The circumstances of that accident were unusual. Industrial grease was propelled…
Continue Reading

Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike May Be Directed at Expert Report — Construing Report to be a “Pleading”

Barnes v. District of Columnbia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133764 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2012): Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike all or part of a pleading for insufficiency, redundancy, immateriality, impertinence, or scandalousness. See F.R.C.P 12(f); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of Commerce, 224 F.R.D. 26 ...
Barnes v. District of Columnbia, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133764 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 2012): Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), a court may strike all or part of a pleading for insufficiency, redundancy, immateriality, impertinence, or scandalousness. See F.R.C.P…
Continue Reading
Previous295296297298299300301Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

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

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