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 11 — Plaintiffs’ Failure to Consider Obvious Affirmative Defenses before Filing Complaint Is Sanctionable

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18322 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): The defendants contend they are entitled to sanctions under Rule 11 and attorney's fees for Petrella's alleged unjustified filing and prosecution of this action, and ask that we remand for the district court to reconsider its denial of their sanc ...
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18322 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): The defendants contend they are entitled to sanctions under Rule 11 and attorney’s fees for Petrella’s alleged unjustified filing and prosecution of this action, and ask…
Continue Reading

RICO — Filed-Rate Doctrine Does Not Preclude Action against Utility for Paying Unlawful Rebates to Large Customers in Return for Withdrawal of Objections to a Rate-Stabilization Plan for Which State Approval Was Being Sought

Williams v. Duke Energy Int’l, Inc., 681 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2012): Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The district court, following a hearing, found that the "filed-rate doctrine" denied the court federal question subject-matter jurisdiction. The district court also found that the Publi ...
Williams v. Duke Energy Int’l, Inc., 681 F.3d 788 (6th Cir. 2012): Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). The district court, following a hearing, found that the “filed-rate doctrine” denied the court…
Continue Reading

Distinguishing an Appealable Modification of an Injunction from a Non-Appealable Clarification — Practical Effects Doctrine — The Legal Relationship of the Parties to the Decree Must Change

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15528 (D.C. Cir July 27, 2012): Appellant tobacco companies seek review of a district court order clarifying an injunction requiring appellants to disclose marketing data to the government. Appellants claim that the clarification of the injunction actually effects a modificat ...
United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15528 (D.C. Cir July 27, 2012): Appellant tobacco companies seek review of a district court order clarifying an injunction requiring appellants to disclose marketing data to the government. Appellants…
Continue Reading

Standards for Settlement Class Laxer Than for Litigation Class — Trial Management Problems Irrelevant — Securities Fraud Plaintiffs Needn’t Enjoy Fraud on the Market Presumption to Satisfy Predominance

In re AIG Int’l Grp., Inc., Secs. Litig., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16911 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2012): In this class action case, we face a rare joint appeal from a district court's order. After the parties arrived at a settlement agreement, the district court ... denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a settlement class. The court held that the ...
In re AIG Int’l Grp., Inc., Secs. Litig., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16911 (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2012): In this class action case, we face a rare joint appeal from a district court’s order. After the parties arrived at a…
Continue Reading

When International Arbitration Agreement Designates a Non-Existent Forum, New York Convention and Federal Arbitration Act Mandate that District Court Compel Arbitration in Its District

Control Screening LLC v. Technological Application & Prod. Co. (TECAPRO), HCMC-Vietnam, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15418 (3d Cir. July 26, 2012): This dispute involves New Jersey-based Control Screening, LLC and Vietnam-based Technological Application and Production Company, HCMC-Vietnam ("Tecapro"). Control Screening and Tecapro disagree abo ...
Control Screening LLC v. Technological Application & Prod. Co. (TECAPRO), HCMC-Vietnam, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15418 (3d Cir. July 26, 2012): This dispute involves New Jersey-based Control Screening, LLC and Vietnam-based Technological Application and Production Company, HCMC-Vietnam (“Tecapro”). Control Screening…
Continue Reading

Lingering Doubt — and Circuit Split — Concerning Continued Vitality of Sliding Scale Standard for Preliminary Injunctive Relief

Holiday CVS, LLC v. Holder, 839 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2012): Footnote 8. Several members of the Circuit have read the Supreme Court's decision in Winter to cast doubt on the continued validity of the sliding scale approach. See Davis, 571 F.3d at 1296 (Kavanaugh, J, joined by Henderson, J., concurring) ("[U]nder the Supr ...
Holiday CVS, LLC v. Holder, 839 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D.D.C. 2012): Footnote 8. Several members of the Circuit have read the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter to cast doubt on the continued validity of the sliding scale approach. See…
Continue Reading

Barebones 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure Adequate Where Supplemented by Expert’s Testing Results and His 30(b)(6) Deposition

Ira Green, Inc. v. J.L. Darling Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113746 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2012): This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Ira Green, Inc.'s Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Disclosures and Report and to Preclude Testimony. *** On July 9, 2012, Green deposed Todd Silver, co-owner of Darling, who had been ...
Ira Green, Inc. v. J.L. Darling Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113746 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 13, 2012): This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Ira Green, Inc.’s Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Disclosures and Report and to Preclude Testimony.…
Continue Reading

Relationship between Attorney Ethics Rules and Malpractice Liability — Non-Client Has No Cause of Action under Rule 4.3, Which Creates No Duty toward Non-Clients

Rosenbaum v. White, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17184 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2012): [T]he plaintiffs also argue that, even if no attorney-client relationship existed, the defendants still owed them a duty under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. The plaintiffs cite a number of rules that the defendants allegedly violated, most especially R ...
Rosenbaum v. White, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17184 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2012): [T]he plaintiffs also argue that, even if no attorney-client relationship existed, the defendants still owed them a duty under the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct. The plaintiffs…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction of Counsel for Bad Faith Defense of Motion Not Immediately Appealable — Rule 11 Reprimand Threatening Reputational Damage Distinguished — Rule 54(b) Jurisdiction Unachieved by Mere Recital of Standard

Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17257 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2012): Square brought the underlying suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against REM Holdings 3, LLC (REM), seeking a correction of inventorship with regard to U.S. Patent No. 7,810,729 (the '729 Patent).
Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17257 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2012): Square brought the underlying suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against REM Holdings 3, LLC (REM),…
Continue Reading

RICO — Neither Attorneys’ Fees Nor Cost of Surgeries Nor Injury to Intangible Interest in Personal Medical Information Constitute Concrete or Quantifiable Injury to Business or Property within § 1964(d) — Declaratory Relief Discretionary

Dickerson v. TLC The Laser Eye Center Institute, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17395 (4th Cir. Aug. 15, 2012); Charles Benjamin Dickerson appeals the district court's grant of motions to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC") filed by Appellees TLC Lasik Centers, TLC Clinical Directors, TLC LASIK Surgeons, and TLC Management (collecti ...
Dickerson v. TLC The Laser Eye Center Institute, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17395 (4th Cir. Aug. 15, 2012); Charles Benjamin Dickerson appeals the district court’s grant of motions to dismiss the first amended complaint (“FAC”) filed by Appellees TLC…
Continue Reading
Previous301302303304305306307Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

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

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

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

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice