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

Denial of Pro Hac Vice Application Due to Frequency of Appearance — Circuit Split as to Whether Pro Hac Appearance Is a Right or a Privilege

Mateo v. Empire Gas Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6398 (D. P.R. Jan. 19, 2012): Before the Court is pro hac vice attorneys Toby B. Fullmer and W. Douglas Matthews' show cause response (Docket # 97), requesting this court not to set aside their pro hac vice admissions in the case at bar. After a comprehensive analysis of the meaning and pur ...
Mateo v. Empire Gas Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6398 (D. P.R. Jan. 19, 2012): Before the Court is pro hac vice attorneys Toby B. Fullmer and W. Douglas Matthews’ show cause response (Docket # 97), requesting this court not…
Continue Reading

Cost of Letter of Credit Required to Support Supersedeas Bond Not a Taxable Cost under FRAP. 39(e) Even Though Cost of Bond Is and Cost of LOC in Lieu of Bond Would Be — Circuit Split

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3552 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012): The district court may tax "premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal." Fed. R. App. P. 39(e)(3). Hynix claims in excess of $8 million in premiums paid for the supersedeas bond it acquired, and in ex ...
Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3552 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012): The district court may tax “premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pending appeal.” Fed. R. App. P. 39(e)(3).…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Motion That Would Require Court to Decide Substance of Motion Subject to Bankruptcy Stay Is Properly Deferred until Stay Lifted

Wolgast v. Richards, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012): Plaintiff's argument presents an issue of first impression: May a debtor, after filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, move for Rule 11 sanctions in a pending case when the subject matter of the motion has been automatically stayed? Under the particular ci ...
Wolgast v. Richards, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5704 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2012): Plaintiff’s argument presents an issue of first impression: May a debtor, after filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, move for Rule 11 sanctions in a pending case…
Continue Reading

Uncertain Application of Rooker-Feldman to State Court Judgments Still on Appeal in State Court System — Circuit Split

TC Healthcare I, LLC v. Dupuis (In re Haven Eldercare, LLC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3190 (D. Conn. Jan. 10, 2012): Ms. Dupuis was employed by a nursing home operator, Haven Eldercare LLC ("Haven"), which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2007. Before the bankruptcy, Ms. Dupuis and Haven entered into a tuition reimbursement con ...
TC Healthcare I, LLC v. Dupuis (In re Haven Eldercare, LLC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3190 (D. Conn. Jan. 10, 2012): Ms. Dupuis was employed by a nursing home operator, Haven Eldercare LLC (“Haven”), which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy…
Continue Reading

Imprisonment for Civil Contempt for Failure to Pay Rule 11 Sanction — 4-Part Fourth Circuit Test for Dismissal Sanction — No Rule 11 Sanction for Isolated, Inadvertent Mistake

Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Ortega, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25713 (4th Cir. Dec. 23, 2011): This appeal arises from the district court's entry of default judgment in the amount of $3,832,832 against John Acord and his mother, Marcella Ortega (collectively, the "Appellants"), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A ...
Young Again Prods., Inc. v. Ortega, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25713 (4th Cir. Dec. 23, 2011): This appeal arises from the district court’s entry of default judgment in the amount of $3,832,832 against John Acord and his mother, Marcella Ortega…
Continue Reading

Can’t Dismiss under 12(b)(6) on Grounds Motion Unopposed, Where Non-Opposition Due to Technical Error — Failure to Comply with Local Rules ≠ Dismissal with Prejudice Absent Contumacious or Repeated Failures — No Rule 11 Sanctions for Inaction

Webb v. Morella, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 433 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2012): The appellants, Belva and Faith Webb, filed this cause against Joseph Morella, their lawyer and a part-time city magistrate, asserting in their complaint a disorganized smattering of federal and state law tort claims against Morella. Morella moved for dismissal of the c ...
Webb v. Morella, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 433 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2012): The appellants, Belva and Faith Webb, filed this cause against Joseph Morella, their lawyer and a part-time city magistrate, asserting in their complaint a disorganized smattering of…
Continue Reading

On-the-Record Statement by Party Declaring in Court That He/She Will Not Bring Civil Action Does Not Judicially Estop Party from Doing So Later

Furey v. Wolfe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148360 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2011): This suit arises from the plaintiff's arrest on April 5, 2008. The plaintiff alleges that Police Officer Travis Wolfe, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and the City of Philadelphia Police Department engaged in violations of his constitution rights, assault, and ba ...
Furey v. Wolfe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148360 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 27, 2011): This suit arises from the plaintiff’s arrest on April 5, 2008. The plaintiff alleges that Police Officer Travis Wolfe, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, and the City of…
Continue Reading

Diversity Jurisdiction — When Unsuccessful Petitioner Seeks to Vacate Arbitral Award of Less Than $75,000 without Seeking Further Relief in Arbitration or in Court, Amount in Controversy Unsatisfied

Coffey v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3998 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012): In this action, Plaintiffs seek to vacate an arbitration award entered on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs sought an award of $222,142.00 from Defendant on the grounds that Defendant's broker had recommended unsuitable securities ...
Coffey v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3998 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2012): In this action, Plaintiffs seek to vacate an arbitration award entered on October 3, 2011. Plaintiffs sought an award of $222,142.00…
Continue Reading

When Is Law “Clearly Established?”

Harvey v. Montgomery County, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2012): Importantly, "[w]here no controlling authority specifically prohibits a defendant's conduct, and when the federal circuit courts are split on the issue, the law cannot be said to be clearly established." Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359, 372 (5th Cir. ...
Harvey v. Montgomery County, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2012): Importantly, “[w]here no controlling authority specifically prohibits a defendant’s conduct, and when the federal circuit courts are split on the issue, the law cannot be said…
Continue Reading
Previous322323324325326327328Next

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