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

Does a Political Subdivision Have Standing to Sue Its Parent State? Circuit Split

City of Hugo v. Nichols, 656 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2011) (Matheson, J., dissenting): Footnote 4. There is a circuit split on the political subdivision standing doctrine. The Ninth Circuit appears to be alone in adopting a per se rule against a political subdivision having standing to sue its parent state. See City of S. Lake Tah ...
City of Hugo v. Nichols, 656 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 2011) (Matheson, J., dissenting): Footnote 4. There is a circuit split on the political subdivision standing doctrine. The Ninth Circuit appears to be alone in adopting a per se rule…
Continue Reading

When Emails Constitute Business Records — Absence of Testimony from Sender Not Preclusive

Penberg v. HealthBridge Mgmt., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119564 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2011): b. Internet Leak HealthBridge's second basis for alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is based on the assertion that confidential HealthBridge documents were leaked onto the internet through a file-sharing program, Lime Wire, that was installed on ...
Penberg v. HealthBridge Mgmt., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119564 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2011): b. Internet Leak HealthBridge’s second basis for alleging a breach of fiduciary duty is based on the assertion that confidential HealthBridge documents were leaked onto the internet…
Continue Reading

RICO Relatedness

United States v. Knight, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22054 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011): A. Pattern of Racketeering Jury Instruction *** A racketeering violation has five basic elements. The district court, without objection from Knight, properly instructed the jury that to establish a RICO violation, the government must prove: ...
United States v. Knight, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22054 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011): A. Pattern of Racketeering Jury Instruction *** A racketeering violation has five basic elements. The district court, without objection from Knight, properly instructed the jury that…
Continue Reading

Identity of Confidential Informants in Securities Class Action Are Not Protected from Disclosure as Work Product — As Distinct from Request for All Witnesses Interviewed, Which Seeks Protected Information

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund v. Arbitron, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131091 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011): This decision addresses a discovery dispute. Defendant Arbitron, Inc., moves for an order directing the lead plaintiff, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund ( ...
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension Annuity Trust Fund v. Arbitron, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131091 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2011): This decision addresses a discovery dispute. Defendant Arbitron, Inc., moves for an order directing the lead plaintiff,…
Continue Reading

No Plain Error Possible Where Issue Is Unresolved in Circuit and Other Circuits Are Split

United States v. Van Pelt, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21217 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2011): Van Pelt concedes, as he must, that we review for plain error because he did not object at trial to any of the issues he presents on appeal. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b). To meet this standard, Van Pelt must show: (1) error, (2) that was "clear or ...
United States v. Van Pelt, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21217 (3d Cir. Oct. 21, 2011): Van Pelt concedes, as he must, that we review for plain error because he did not object at trial to any of the issues he…
Continue Reading

Mandatory Withdrawal of the Reference Where “Substantial and Material Issues” of Non-Bankruptcy Federal Law — and Especially Issues of First Impression — Are Involved

SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 454 B.R. 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2011): JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (collectively, "JPMorgan") have moved for an order under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d) withdrawing the reference of this action to the bankruptcy court. Irving H. Picar ...
SIPC v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 454 B.R. 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2011): JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (collectively, “JPMorgan”) have moved for an order under 28 U.S.C.…
Continue Reading

Is a District Court Error of Law Subject to Correction via Rule 60(b)(1) or Only on Appeal? A State Court Error of Law Pre-Removal? Circuit Split

Lindsey v. Highwoods Realty LP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127860 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2011): On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint with the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond requesting that the style of the original complaint be amended to include Western as a named defendant. Plaintiff also requested that the amend ...
Lindsey v. Highwoods Realty LP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127860 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 2011): On July 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend Complaint with the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond requesting that the style of…
Continue Reading

State Court Rules Do Not Govern Practice in Federal Court

Patisso v. Law Offices of Bruce E. Baldinger, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123140 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2011): "Nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent has established that practice before federal courts is not governed by state court rules." Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Midland Ave. Assocs., LLC, No. 10-CV-5064, 2011 U.S. Dist. LE ...
Patisso v. Law Offices of Bruce E. Baldinger, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123140 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2011): “Nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent has established that practice before federal courts is not governed by state court rules.” Amusement…
Continue Reading

Claim-Splitting Does Not Require Final Judgment, Unlike Res Judicata — Forced Seller Doctrine Does Not Apply to 1933 Act Claims — Investor Forced to Sell in Squeeze-Out Merger Is Not a Purchaser under 1933 Act

Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2011): This case requires us to consider whether a plaintiff can split potential legal claims against a defendant by bringing them in two different lawsuits. We conclude that related claims must be brought in a single cause of action, and the district court properly dismissed the claim-splitting ...
Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2011): This case requires us to consider whether a plaintiff can split potential legal claims against a defendant by bringing them in two different lawsuits. We conclude that related claims must be…
Continue Reading

Dismissal of Suit That Has Facial Merit for Failure of Plaintiff to Pay Sanction He Cannot Afford Reversed as Disproportionate — Note: Third Party (His Lawyer) Paid the Sanction before Decision Was Rendered

From Williams v. Adams, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19431 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2011): The question presented by this appeal is: when is it proper to dismiss a suit because the plaintiff failed to pay a sanction if the only reason for the failure is that he doesn't have the money to pay it? The plaintiff had filed this lawsuit pro ...
From Williams v. Adams, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19431 (7th Cir. Sept. 23, 2011): The question presented by this appeal is: when is it proper to dismiss a suit because the plaintiff failed to pay a sanction if the only…
Continue Reading
Previous327328329330331332333Next

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