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

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

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
Previous331332333334335336337Next

Recent Posts

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

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