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

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

District Court May Enter Preliminary Injunction before Deciding Motion to Compel Arbitration

From Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011): The Securities Exchange Commission ("SEC") brought suit against Stanford Group Company ("SGC"), along with various other Stanford corporate entities, including Stanford International Bank ("SIB"), for allegedly perpetrating a massive Ponzi scheme. The district court appointed Robert ...
From Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011): The Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought suit against Stanford Group Company (“SGC”), along with various other Stanford corporate entities, including Stanford International Bank (“SIB”), for allegedly perpetrating a massive Ponzi…
Continue Reading

There Is No Federal Privilege Against Being Called as Unretained Expert for a Party — Rule 45 Factors — Party Cannot Disqualify Adversary’s Counsel by Subpoenaing Him as Expert

From Aragon v. San Jose Ditch Ass’n, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127243 (D. N.M. Oct. 3, 2011): Although unretained experts have no privilege to refuse to be a witness for a party, Footnote 4 Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence states: "An expert witness shall not be appointed by the court unles ...
From Aragon v. San Jose Ditch Ass’n, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127243 (D. N.M. Oct. 3, 2011): Although unretained experts have no privilege to refuse to be a witness for a party, Footnote 4 Rule 706(a) of the Federal Rules…
Continue Reading

“Derivative Jurisdiction” Is Procedural — Its Absence Is a Removal Defect — If Court Would Have Had Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Hypothetical Federal Complaint at Time of Filing, Federal Jurisdiction Exists

Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2011): A. (Derivative) Jurisdiction Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we must address a jurisdictional issue the United States has raised. When a case is removed from state to federal court, the jurisdiction of the latter is said "in a limited sense" to derive from the former. Edw ...
Rodas v. Seidlin, 656 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2011): A. (Derivative) Jurisdiction Before reaching the merits of this appeal, we must address a jurisdictional issue the United States has raised. When a case is removed from state to federal court,…
Continue Reading

Evidence from Jurors after Hung Verdict Not Barred by 606(b) — Sanctions: Concession Establishes Violation of Order but Not Bad Faith — Compensatory Sanctions Require Causation — Good Quotes

Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21739 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2011): This is a strange case. Its resolution hinges on the absence, as a factual matter, of something we must accept as a legal matter. There are unlikely to be many more like it, so this opinion's precedential value is probably limited. We nevertheless publis ...
Miller v. City of Los Angeles, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21739 (9th Cir. Oct. 27, 2011): This is a strange case. Its resolution hinges on the absence, as a factual matter, of something we must accept as a legal matter.…
Continue Reading

In Determining Amount in Controversy, Both Punitive Damages and Attorneys’ Fees Are Considered

From West County Motor Co. v. Talley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109485 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2011): The FAA itself is not jurisdictional. Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581-82 (2008). Thus, West County's action is dependent on some other independent jurisdictional basis. Id. As West County premises federal jurisdic ...
From West County Motor Co. v. Talley, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109485 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2011): The FAA itself is not jurisdictional. Hall Street Assocs., L.L.C. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 581-82 (2008). Thus, West County’s action is…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — When Summary Criminal Contempt May Be Used in Civil Actions — Upheld for Yelling Foul Insult at Judge during Telephonic Conference — Sufficiency of Notice Where Civil vs. Criminal Contempt Not Specified

From Ocean-Oil Expert Witness, Inc. v. O’Dwyer, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20467 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2011): Ashton O'Dwyer, pro se, appeals a default judgment granted to Ocean-Oil Expert Witness, Inc. ("Ocean-Oil"), after his answer was stricken as a contempt sanction. Because the use of inherent power was appropriate in light of O'Dwyer's b ...
From Ocean-Oil Expert Witness, Inc. v. O’Dwyer, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20467 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2011): Ashton O’Dwyer, pro se, appeals a default judgment granted to Ocean-Oil Expert Witness, Inc. (“Ocean-Oil”), after his answer was stricken as a contempt…
Continue Reading

Article III Standing As a Prerequisite to Intervention under Rule 24 — Circuit Split

From Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118233 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2011): Presently before the court are three motions for leave to intervene. The proposed intervenors seek leave to intervene in this action as party defendants as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 ...
From Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118233 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 13, 2011): Presently before the court are three motions for leave to intervene. The proposed intervenors seek leave to intervene in this…
Continue Reading
Previous329330331332333334335Next

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