Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Murriel Don Coal Co. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 790 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D. Ky. 2011): Admittedly, at the heart of fraudulent joinder is an understandable impulse: Plaintiffs should not be able to play games with federal jurisdiction. If a Kentucky plaintiff sues a New York insurance company, he should not be able to tether the case to state ...
Murriel Don Coal Co. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 790 F. Supp. 2d 590 (E.D. Ky. 2011): Admittedly, at the heart of fraudulent joinder is an understandable impulse: Plaintiffs should not be able to play games with federal jurisdiction. If…
Aventa Learning, Inc. v. K12, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129928 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2011): Plaintiff Aventa Learning, Inc. ("Aventa") is a Washington corporation founded in 2002 by Mr. Axtman and Mr. Benitez. *** Aventa assists schools in bringing their educational curricula online. *** KCDL is a provider of distance learning progr ...
Aventa Learning, Inc. v. K12, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129928 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 8, 2011): Plaintiff Aventa Learning, Inc. (“Aventa”) is a Washington corporation founded in 2002 by Mr. Axtman and Mr. Benitez. *** Aventa assists schools in bringing…
Green v. Johnson Richards & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127181 (M.D. La. Oct. 11, 2011): This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and 60(b)(6) *** On July 30, 2003, plaintiffs filed a "Motion for Entry of Default Pursuant to Rule 55(A) of the Federa ...
Green v. Johnson Richards & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127181 (M.D. La. Oct. 11, 2011): This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Default Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) and…
On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, from 1 - 2 p.m. EST, the ABA Antitrust Law Section will be hosting a teleconference seminar on the salient differences between federal and state RICO statutes and litigation. The featured speaker is John Floyd, the nation's leading expert on state RICO statutes and litigation (the second edition of his RICO State by State, A Guide t ...
On Tuesday, December 6, 2011, from 1 – 2 p.m. EST, the ABA Antitrust Law Section will be hosting a teleconference seminar on the salient differences between federal and state RICO statutes and litigation. The featured speaker is John Floyd,…
Best Payphones, Inc. v. Manhattan Telecommc’ns Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23528 (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2011): ***Best's proposed motion [for § 1927 sanctions] lacked merit. In its Pre-motion Letter, Best argued that MetTel's statements were irreconcilable or inconsistent with the record. In fact, the claims and arguments to which Best ob ...
Best Payphones, Inc. v. Manhattan Telecommc’ns Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23528 (2d Cir. Nov. 23, 2011): ***Best’s proposed motion [for § 1927 sanctions] lacked merit. In its Pre-motion Letter, Best argued that MetTel’s statements were irreconcilable or inconsistent with…
Ortiz v. Green Bull, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131600 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011)L Presently before the Court is a motion by Werner to seal the record and for other relief based on ... an alleged violation of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct by counsel for the Plaintiff, Mark Panzavecchia based on a telephone conversation betw ...
Ortiz v. Green Bull, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131600 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011)L Presently before the Court is a motion by Werner to seal the record and for other relief based on … an alleged violation of the New…
Kalinoski v. Lackawanna County, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124249 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 26, 2011): A motion for reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within twenty-eight days of the judgment's entry. A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to merely r ...
Kalinoski v. Lackawanna County, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124249 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 26, 2011): A motion for reconsideration is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which allows a party to move to alter or amend a judgment within twenty-eight…
From SAS Institute Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129611 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2011): Rule 12(f) provides, in pertinent part that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act ... on its own; or . . .on mo ...
From SAS Institute Inc. v. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129611 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 9, 2011): Rule 12(f) provides, in pertinent part that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any…
Morson v. Kreindler & Kreindler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112310 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011): Two of plaintiff's claims, Count V: negligent infliction of emotional distress ("NEID"), and Count VI: intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED"), allege injuries that are not purely economic in nature. However, New York does not allo ...
Morson v. Kreindler & Kreindler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112310 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011): Two of plaintiff’s claims, Count V: negligent infliction of emotional distress (“NEID”), and Count VI: intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), allege injuries that are not…
From Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128897 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2011): SK and Epic are both engaged in the business of developing video games. On May 10, 2005, SK entered into a license agreement to use Epic's video game engine, the Unreal Engine 3 ("UE3"), in SK's development of Too Human, a game SK produ ...
From Silicon Knights, Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128897 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 8, 2011): SK and Epic are both engaged in the business of developing video games. On May 10, 2005, SK entered into a license agreement…

Recent Posts

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)

Archives