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

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

Sanctions — Lead Counsel Responsible for Discovery Failures, Cannot Shift Blame — Rule 37 Motion Puts Counsel on Notice of Personal Risk — No Defense That He Didn’t Instruct Client Not to Comply — No Right to Oral Argument in Second Circuit

Rates Technology, Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15489 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012): This appeal arises from the imposition of discovery sanctions against James B. Hicks. Mr. Hicks was the lead attorney for Rates Technology, Inc. ("RTI"), the plaintiff in a patent infringement action. The two patents in suit relate ...
Rates Technology, Inc. v. Mediatrix Telecom, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15489 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012): This appeal arises from the imposition of discovery sanctions against James B. Hicks. Mr. Hicks was the lead attorney for Rates Technology, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Motions in Limine — Standards

Mahaney v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 835 F. Supp. 2d 299 (W.D. Ky. 2011): Motions in limine provided in advance of trial are appropriate if they eliminate evidence that has no legitimate use at trial for any purpose. Jonasson v. Lutheran Child & Family Servs., 115 F.3d 436, 440 (7th Cir. 1997); Bouchard v. Am. Home Products Corp., 213 F. S ...
Mahaney v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 835 F. Supp. 2d 299 (W.D. Ky. 2011): Motions in limine provided in advance of trial are appropriate if they eliminate evidence that has no legitimate use at trial for any purpose. Jonasson v. Lutheran…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782 Contains No Requirement That the Evidence Sought Be Admissible in the Foreign Proceeding — Good Quote on Abuse of Discretion Standard

Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Insustriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012): Petitioner-Appellant Anselm Brandi-Dohrn appeals from an Order dated November 16, 2011 *** granting Respondent-Appellee IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG's motion to quash subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Under section 1782, a district court is permitt ...
Brandi-Dohrn v. IKB Deutsche Insustriebank AG, 673 F.3d 76 (2d Cir. 2012): Petitioner-Appellant Anselm Brandi-Dohrn appeals from an Order dated November 16, 2011 *** granting Respondent-Appellee IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG’s motion to quash subpoenas issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split as to Whether Bankruptcy Court or District Court Has Jurisdiction over Claims Arising out of Violation of the Automatic Stay

Roberts v. Am. Bank & Trust Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 183 (E.D. La. 2011): The American Bank Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's claims of violation of the automatic stay, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim and that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The United States ...
Roberts v. Am. Bank & Trust Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 183 (E.D. La. 2011): The American Bank Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims of violation of the automatic stay, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the…
Continue Reading

Failure to Assert Affirmative Defense — Waiver or Constructive Amendment of Answer by Raising Defense in Motion for Summary Judgment? — Factors — Good Quote

Sky Harbor Air Serv. v. Reams, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14899 (10th Cir. July 20, 2012): The illegality of a contract is a defense that "a party must affirmatively state" in a pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); see also Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local Union Nos. 12, 111, 113, 969 v. Prof'l Hole Drilling, Inc., 574 F.2d 497, 500 (10th ...
Sky Harbor Air Serv. v. Reams, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14899 (10th Cir. July 20, 2012): The illegality of a contract is a defense that “a party must affirmatively state” in a pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1); see…
Continue Reading

Court May Reduce § 1927 Sanction Based on Violator’s Inability to Pay — Circuit Split

Haynes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15102 (9th Cir. July 23, 2012): Gregory Haynes ("Haynes") was the counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying action. The district court determined that Haynes continued pursuit of plaintiff's claims, after it was clear that the claims were frivolous and in bad faith. The cou ...
Haynes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15102 (9th Cir. July 23, 2012): Gregory Haynes (“Haynes”) was the counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying action. The district court determined that Haynes continued pursuit of…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Are Discretionary Even If Vexatiousness Found — Bad Faith Finding Subject to Clear-Error Standard of Review

Olson v. Reynolds, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13167 (7th Cir. June 27, 2012): We turn next to the denial of sanctions under section 1927. Under this provision, a court may in its discretion impose sanctions only upon a finding of bad faith-meaning extreme negligence, "serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice," pursuit ...
Olson v. Reynolds, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13167 (7th Cir. June 27, 2012): We turn next to the denial of sanctions under section 1927. Under this provision, a court may in its discretion impose sanctions only upon a finding of…
Continue Reading
Previous303304305306307308309Next

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