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

Jury Can’t Rely on Wikipedia But Circuit Does — Jury Verdict Overturned Due to Juror’s Consultation of Wikipedia During Deliberations in Direct Violation of Instruction — Reliability Questioned

United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 2012) (overturning a criminal conviction because a juror consulted Wikipedia for a definition of “sponsor”): Six days after the jury returned its verdict finding Lawson guilty on all charges, one of the jurors, Juror 1, informed a courtroom security officer of potential juror miscondu ...
United States v. Lawson, 677 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 2012) (overturning a criminal conviction because a juror consulted Wikipedia for a definition of “sponsor”): Six days after the jury returned its verdict finding Lawson guilty on all charges, one of…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Imposed on Sophisticated Party for Court Papers Groundlessly Opposing Arbitration — Bad Faith Shown by Redacting Key Contractual Language from Quotation to Court

Amaprop Ltd. v Indiabulls Fin’l Servs. Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10586 (2d Cir. May 25, 2012): Respondent-Appellant Indiabulls Financial Services Limited ("IFSL"), an Indian corporation, appeals from an award of attorney's fees granted by the district court as a sanction for IFSL's bad-faith efforts to avoid arbitration with Amaprop ...
Amaprop Ltd. v Indiabulls Fin’l Servs. Ltd., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10586 (2d Cir. May 25, 2012): Respondent-Appellant Indiabulls Financial Services Limited (“IFSL”), an Indian corporation, appeals from an award of attorney’s fees granted by the district court as a…
Continue Reading

Law of the Case Doctrine Does Not Bar Trial Judge from Reconsidering Expert Rulings that Were Not Addressed on Interim Appeal — Limits on Applicability of Law of the Case Doctrine

Oliver v. Orange Cnty., Fla., 456 Fed. Appx. 815 (11th Cir. 2012): "Under the law of the case doctrine, both the district court and the appellate court are generally bound by a prior appellate decision of the same case. The law of the case doctrine, however, bars consideration of only those legal issues that were actually, or by n ...
Oliver v. Orange Cnty., Fla., 456 Fed. Appx. 815 (11th Cir. 2012): “Under the law of the case doctrine, both the district court and the appellate court are generally bound by a prior appellate decision of the same case. The…
Continue Reading

Rule 26(b)(4)(B) — Exceptional Circumstances Required to Depose Non-Testifying Expert Who Was Previously Designated as Testifying Expert — Caselaw Split

Decena v. Am. Int’l Cos., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61303 (E.D. La. May 1, 2012): [T]he Court ordered Plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination ("IME"), to be conducted by Defendants' designated expert, Dr. Avanelle Jack, on March 13, 2012. During the IME, Plaintiff reportedly experienced kidney failure, prompting Dr. ...
Decena v. Am. Int’l Cos., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61303 (E.D. La. May 1, 2012): [T]he Court ordered Plaintiff to submit to an independent medical examination (“IME”), to be conducted by Defendants’ designated expert, Dr. Avanelle Jack, on March 13,…
Continue Reading

Joint Defense / Common Interest Privilege — Circuit Split as to Whether Parties Must Anticipate Litigation for the Privilege to Apply — Written Agreement Unnecessary — What Is a Common Legal Interest?

United States v. Env’l Defense Fund, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59565 (M.D. N.C. 2012): VI. JOINT DEFENSE OR COMMON INTEREST RULE The Fourth Circuit recognizes an exception to waiver of attorney-client privilege in the joint defense rule, now "more properly identified as the 'common interest rule.'" In re Grand Jury Subp ...
United States v. Env’l Defense Fund, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59565 (M.D. N.C. 2012): VI. JOINT DEFENSE OR COMMON INTEREST RULE The Fourth Circuit recognizes an exception to waiver of attorney-client privilege in the joint defense rule, now “more properly…
Continue Reading

The Lingering Question Whether Spoliation Sanctions Are Governed by State or Federal Law

Capogrosso v. 30 River Court East Urban Renewal Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9835 (3d Cir. May 16, 2012): Eleanor Capogrosso, a licensed attorney, appeals from the District Court's dismissal of various complaints related to property damage allegedly suffered as a result of an incident involving a water pipe in her apartment. Following the ...
Capogrosso v. 30 River Court East Urban Renewal Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9835 (3d Cir. May 16, 2012): Eleanor Capogrosso, a licensed attorney, appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of various complaints related to property damage allegedly suffered as…
Continue Reading

Cost of Unsafe Medical Procedure ≠ RICO Injury — Fraud Claim Duplicative of Malpractice Claim Must Be Dismissed Absent Separate and Distinct Injury

Gotlin v. Lederman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8790 (2d Cir. May 1, 2012): In this action, Gotlin asserts, inter alia, that defendants fraudulently misrepresented the efficacy of a particular form of cancer treatment, Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery ("FSR"), and therefore unlawfully induced the decedents to unnecessarily undergo an ine ...
Gotlin v. Lederman, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8790 (2d Cir. May 1, 2012): In this action, Gotlin asserts, inter alia, that defendants fraudulently misrepresented the efficacy of a particular form of cancer treatment, Fractionated Stereotactic Radiosurgery (“FSR”), and therefore unlawfully…
Continue Reading

Proposed Standard Voir Dire Jury Instruction Cautioning Jurors Against Social Media and Internet Use — Florida Supreme Court

From In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases — Report, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 961 (Fla. Sup. Ct. May 17, 2012): QUALIFICATIONS INSTRUCTION Many of you have cell phones, computers, and other electronic devices. Even though you have not yet been selected as a juror, there are some strict rules that you must follow about usin ...
From In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases — Report, 2012 Fla. LEXIS 961 (Fla. Sup. Ct. May 17, 2012): QUALIFICATIONS INSTRUCTION Many of you have cell phones, computers, and other electronic devices. Even though you have not yet…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Circuit Splits on the Application of American Pipe

Barkley v. Woodbury County, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71747 (N.D. Iowa May 23, 2012): 3. The tolling rule for members of a prior putative class a. The general rule The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained the "American Pipe rule," as follows: In American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Ut ...
Barkley v. Woodbury County, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71747 (N.D. Iowa May 23, 2012): 3. The tolling rule for members of a prior putative class a. The general rule The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained the “American Pipe…
Continue Reading

Perlman Exception Allowing Appeal of Privilege Ruling When Documents Held by Third Party Does Not Apply When Order Directs Privilege Holder to Secure Production by Third Party — Presidential Exception — Impact of Mohawk on Perlman

In re Grand Jury ABC Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10558 (3d Cir. May 24, 2012) (note: this opinion was withdrawn on December 11, 2012, in In re Grand Jury, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25318 (3d Cir. Dec. 11, 2012), which is subsequently excerpted on this blog in January 2013): ABC Corp., John Doe 1, and John Doe 2 seek to appeal ...
In re Grand Jury ABC Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10558 (3d Cir. May 24, 2012) (note: this opinion was withdrawn on December 11, 2012, in In re Grand Jury, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25318 (3d Cir. Dec. 11, 2012),…
Continue Reading
Previous307308309310311312313Next

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