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

PIN Text Messages Authenticated for Rule 104(a) Purposes by Affidavit from Service Provider and Distinctive Characteristics, Primarily from Contents — Jury Is Ultimate Decisionmaker under Rule 104(b)

United States v. Kilpatrick, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110166 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2012): The government seeks a preliminary pretrial ruling on the authenticity of relevant text message exchanges pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) and (b). The evidence at issue is comprised of text messages exchanged between and among Defendants and ...
United States v. Kilpatrick, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110166 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2012): The government seeks a preliminary pretrial ruling on the authenticity of relevant text message exchanges pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) and (b). The evidence…
Continue Reading

Federal, Not State, Law Governs Spoliation Sanctions

Sherman v. Rinchem Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16283 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012): A. Spoliation of Evidence In seeking summary judgment as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, Sherman argued that he had specifically requested that Rinchem produce "[a]ny and all documents relating to Plaintiff and the investigation of the P ...
Sherman v. Rinchem Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16283 (8th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012): A. Spoliation of Evidence In seeking summary judgment as a sanction for spoliation of evidence, Sherman argued that he had specifically requested that Rinchem produce “[a]ny…
Continue Reading

Counsel’s Improper Influence over Deposition Errata Sheets — Effecting Substantive Changes to Conform Deposition to Complaint — in Order to Push Meritless Case to Trial Warrants § 1927 Sanctions

Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15704 (5th Cir. July 30, 2012): Relator's counsel also appeals the district court's award of sanctions under § 1927 in connection with Relator's retaliation suit. *** Section 1927 sanctions are not to be awarded lightly. They require "evidence of bad faith, i ...
Gonzalez v. Fresenius Med. Care N. Am., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15704 (5th Cir. July 30, 2012): Relator’s counsel also appeals the district court’s award of sanctions under § 1927 in connection with Relator’s retaliation suit. *** Section 1927 sanctions…
Continue Reading

Plaintiff May Not Voluntarily Dismiss Petition to Compel Arbitration — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Does Not Apply — It Is “Rare Case” in which District Judge’s Refusal to Recuse Is Reversed

ISC Holding AG v.- Nobel Biocare Finance AG, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15402 (2d Cir. July 25, 2012): Petitioner-Appellant ISC Holding AG ("ISC") appeals from a November 23, 2010 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stanton, J.) vacating its voluntary notice of dismissal and from a judgment, entere ...
ISC Holding AG v.- Nobel Biocare Finance AG, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15402 (2d Cir. July 25, 2012): Petitioner-Appellant ISC Holding AG (“ISC”) appeals from a November 23, 2010 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District…
Continue Reading

District Court Retains Jurisdiction after Remand to Sanction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) as Well as Rule 11

Desert Schools Federal Credit Union v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12193 (9th Cir. June 15, 2011): The Supreme Court has long held that a district court retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even after a case has been dismissed. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 394-98 (1990). Further, this court has held ...
Desert Schools Federal Credit Union v. Johnson, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12193 (9th Cir. June 15, 2011): The Supreme Court has long held that a district court retains jurisdiction to impose Rule 11 sanctions even after a case has been…
Continue Reading

Presumption of Access to Judicial Records Inapplicable to Those Filed under Seal with a Non-Dispositive Motion, But Daubert Motion Filed with Summary Judgment Motion May Be Dispositive

In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Lit., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15334 (9th Cir. July 25, 2012): The district court presided over four class action cases, each brought by the same plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs asserted similar claims against each defendant for RICO violations and violations of state law based on the ...
In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Lit., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15334 (9th Cir. July 25, 2012): The district court presided over four class action cases, each brought by the same plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs asserted similar…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions —Party’s Unfounded Attack on Settlement Agreement, Like Unfounded Attack on Arbitration Award, Is Vexatious — Settlement Agreement Predicated on Confidentiality of Terms Justifies Sealing Order

Seals v. Herzing Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13390 (5th Cir. June 29, 2012): A two-day arbitration hearing was scheduled. Seals proceeded pro se prior to the hearing, but he retained counsel for the hearing itself. On the hearing's second day, the parties agreed to settlement terms. The terms were read on the record at the arbitrati ...
Seals v. Herzing Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13390 (5th Cir. June 29, 2012): A two-day arbitration hearing was scheduled. Seals proceeded pro se prior to the hearing, but he retained counsel for the hearing itself. On the hearing’s second…
Continue Reading

Court May Appoint Arbitrator under FAA and New York Convention Any Time There Is a “Mechanical Breakdown” in the Arbitrator Selection Process unless an Integral Forum Selection Clause Has Failed

BP Exploration Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15706 (5th Cir. July 30,2012): BP Exploration Libya Limited ("BP"), ExxonMobil Libya Limited ("Exxon"), and Noble North Africa Limited ("Noble") are entangled in a disagreement over the appointment of arbitrators to hear and decide their dispute related to the alle ...
BP Exploration Libya Ltd. v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15706 (5th Cir. July 30,2012): BP Exploration Libya Limited (“BP”), ExxonMobil Libya Limited (“Exxon”), and Noble North Africa Limited (“Noble”) are entangled in a disagreement over the appointment…
Continue Reading

Must Evidence Submitted at Class Certification Stage be Admissible into Evidence (Rule 56 Standard)? Circuit Split

Lujan v. Cabana Mgmt., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104585 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2012): More problematic is the question whether a declaration submitted in connection with a Rule 23 motion to certify a class must be based on personal knowledge and free of inadmissible hearsay. Although defendants urge the Court to measure plaintiffs' Ru ...
Lujan v. Cabana Mgmt., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104585 (E.D.N.Y. July 26, 2012): More problematic is the question whether a declaration submitted in connection with a Rule 23 motion to certify a class must be based on personal knowledge…
Continue Reading

Is an Expert Who Agrees to Testify for No Compensation but with Expense Reimbursement “Specially Employed” within 26(a)(2)(B) Requiring a Written Report?

Acree v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101697 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2012): Plaintiff has moved to strike two witnesses on the ground that defendants disclosed them too late and insufficiently. The witnesses are two scientists who reside in Germany, a pathologist (Dr. Sven Anders) and a toxicologist (Dr. Hilke Andresen), who a ...
Acree v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101697 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2012): Plaintiff has moved to strike two witnesses on the ground that defendants disclosed them too late and insufficiently. The witnesses are two scientists who reside…
Continue Reading
Previous301302303304305306307Next

Recent Posts

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

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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