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

§ 1927 Sanctions May Not Be Ordered Paid to the Court — Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed Even If Rule 11 Procedural Requirements Violated — Post-Judgment Inherent Power Sanctions

Melliott v. MSN Commc’ns, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15218 (10th Cir. July 24, 2012): John R. Olsen, who was the plaintiff's attorney in the underlying district-court action, and his law firm appeal a Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanction imposed on them. Although we sympathize with the district court's frustration with Mr. Olsen's conduct, the ...
Melliott v. MSN Commc’ns, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15218 (10th Cir. July 24, 2012): John R. Olsen, who was the plaintiff’s attorney in the underlying district-court action, and his law firm appeal a Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 sanction…
Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Abandons Rule Requiring That Dismissed Claims Be Realleged in Amended Complaint or Forfeited — Ends Both Sanctions Exposure and Circuit Split

Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18320 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): Before we consider his claim to immunity, we must address whether the claims against Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas are properly before us, as our circuit law appears to require that we consider the claims against Thomas to be waived. Thomas was na ...
Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18320 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2012): Before we consider his claim to immunity, we must address whether the claims against Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas are properly before us, as our circuit…
Continue Reading

“Whether or Not the Supreme Court Is Infallible, It Is Final” and Alone Entitled to Revisit Its Precedents — Good Quote

Woolsey v. Citibank, N.A., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18597 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2012): Like so many these days, Stephanie and Kenneth Woolsey owe more money on their home than it's worth. In fact, the value of their home doesn't come close to covering the balance due on their first mortgage, much less the amount they owe on a second. And it's ...
Woolsey v. Citibank, N.A., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18597 (10th Cir. Sept. 4, 2012): Like so many these days, Stephanie and Kenneth Woolsey owe more money on their home than it’s worth. In fact, the value of their home doesn’t…
Continue Reading

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
Previous309310311312313314315Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Propoerty When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

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