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

“Motion” to Voluntarily Dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1) May = Notice of Dismissal Despite Title — Court Retains Jurisdiction to Sanction, Cite for Criminal Contempt and Possibly Grant 60(b) Relief

Edwards-Brown v. Crete-Monee 201 U School Dist., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16358 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): We note first that the district court properly construed Brown's "motion" for voluntary dismissal as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). That she incorrectly called it a "motion to dismiss" is irrelevant. See S ...
Edwards-Brown v. Crete-Monee 201 U School Dist., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16358 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): We note first that the district court properly construed Brown’s “motion” for voluntary dismissal as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Proceedings and Imposition of Discipline Not Subject to Automatic Stay of Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)

In re Halo Wireless, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12284 (5th Cir. June 18, 2012): [I]n Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit held that a proceeding to impose sanctions under Rule 11 was exempt from the automatic stay. The court stated: [t]he Rule 11 sanction is meted out by a gov ...
In re Halo Wireless, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12284 (5th Cir. June 18, 2012): [I]n Alpern v. Lieb, 11 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 1993), the Seventh Circuit held that a proceeding to impose sanctions under Rule 11 was exempt…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split as to Whether Dismissal Motion Based on Forum Selection Clause Is Properly Raised under Rule 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) or 12(b)(6)

Lanier v. Syncreon Holdings, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114117 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2012): Whether a motion to dismiss based on the existence of a valid forum selection clause is properly granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue, or Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to stat ...
Lanier v. Syncreon Holdings, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114117 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 14, 2012): Whether a motion to dismiss based on the existence of a valid forum selection clause is properly granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of…
Continue Reading

Rule 26(b)(4)(E) Supersedes 28 U.S.C. § 1821 and Authorizes Award of Expert Fees and Expenses Over § 1821’s Cap — Appellate Brief Filed within 30 Days of Appealed Order = Additional Notice of Appeal for Issues Unmentioned in Original Notice

Halasa v. ITT Educational Servs., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16930 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012): ITT Educational Services is a for-profit corporation that runs "ITT Technical Institutes" in several locations throughout the United States, including Lathrop, California. Plaintiff Jason Halasa was the Lathrop Campus's College Director for six months ...
Halasa v. ITT Educational Servs., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16930 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2012): ITT Educational Services is a for-profit corporation that runs “ITT Technical Institutes” in several locations throughout the United States, including Lathrop, California. Plaintiff Jason Halasa…
Continue Reading

Notice of Removal May Not Be Amended to Add Jurisdictional Facts Not in Existence at Time Notice Was Filed

Am. Int’l Grp. v. Bank of Am., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106072 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2012): Plaintiffs initiated this action in New York State Court in August 2011. Defendants removed the action to federal court, and Plaintiffs then filed a motion in this Court to remand the case to state court. On October 20, 2011, the Court denied Plainti ...
Am. Int’l Grp. v. Bank of Am., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106072 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2012): Plaintiffs initiated this action in New York State Court in August 2011. Defendants removed the action to federal court, and Plaintiffs then filed a…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Reasonable Prefiling Investigation May Negate Bad Faith — Misconduct in Another Court Sanctionable Only If It Is in Direct Defiance of Sanctioning Court — Relationship between Rule 11 and 35 U.S.C. § 285

Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16450 (Fed Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. ("Allcare") appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas finding this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding attorneys' fees and cost ...
Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16450 (Fed Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc. (“Allcare”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas…
Continue Reading

Posthumous Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege Must Be in the Interest of the Decedent or the Estate — Reputational Damage to Decedent Benefitting Personal Representative / Executor Precludes Waiver

United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011): A jury found Geffrey A. Yielding guilty of two federal offenses: one count of aiding and abetting a violation of the so-called Medicare anti-kickback statute, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of aiding and abetting the falsification of ...
United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. 2011): A jury found Geffrey A. Yielding guilty of two federal offenses: one count of aiding and abetting a violation of the so-called Medicare anti-kickback statute, in violation of 42 U.S.C.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Power to Disbar Should be Exercised with Great Caution

Parker v. Jacobs (In re Parker), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16552 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2012): On February 17, 2011, Teresa Jacobs, the bankruptcy administrator for the Middle District of Alabama, moved for the bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on Parker. Jacobs alleged that, over the course of several cases, Parker committed numerous violati ...
Parker v. Jacobs (In re Parker), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16552 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2012): On February 17, 2011, Teresa Jacobs, the bankruptcy administrator for the Middle District of Alabama, moved for the bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on…
Continue Reading

Party Resisting Confirmation of Arbitration Award Is Entitled to Judicial Determination of Arbitrability Absent Clear and Unmistakable Evidence That Parties Agreed to Arbitrate Or Submit Issue to Arbitrator

Schneider v. Kingdom of Thailand, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16508 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2012): "The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the 'question of arbitrability,' is 'an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise.'" Ho ...
Schneider v. Kingdom of Thailand, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16508 (2d Cir. Aug. 8, 2012): “The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the ‘question of arbitrability,’ is ‘an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Adverse Inference Requires Bad Faith in Tenth Circuit — Allowing Witnesses to be Questioned about Spoliation Constitutes a Lesser Sanction

Dalcour v. City of Lakewood, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16303 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012): Before jury selection on the claims of unconstitutional seizure and use of excessive force by the Officers, the district court ruled on several motions in limine, including Plaintiffs' motion alleging spoliation of evidence related to the city's TASER logs ...
Dalcour v. City of Lakewood, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16303 (10th Cir. Aug. 6, 2012): Before jury selection on the claims of unconstitutional seizure and use of excessive force by the Officers, the district court ruled on several motions in…
Continue Reading
Previous311312313314315316317Next

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 Property 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