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

Inherent Power — Bad Faith of Counsel in Flagrantly Violating In Limine Order Attributed to Client — Exclusion of Expert Testimony as Sanction Upheld

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2011) (Background: The defense violated an in limine order that it not refer to the fact that the plaintiff was headquartered in the Cayman Islands. On voir dire, defense counsel asked: “Now, are there any of you who have a problem with a compa ...
O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 18, 2011) (Background: The defense violated an in limine order that it not refer to the fact that the plaintiff was headquartered…
Continue Reading

Sarbanes-Oxley’s Addition of 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) as a Predicate Authorizes RICO Claim for Firing as a Result of Whistleblowing Where Retaliation Linked to Racketeering Activity — Offering Raise + Confi + Release Suffices

DeGuelle v. Camilli, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24868 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011): Michael J. DeGuelle, a tax employee of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., was terminated after reporting an alleged tax fraud scheme to the company and federal law enforcement agencies. Following his termination, DeGuelle filed suit asserting two civil claims under the Ra ...
DeGuelle v. Camilli, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24868 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011): Michael J. DeGuelle, a tax employee of S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., was terminated after reporting an alleged tax fraud scheme to the company and federal law…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Requiring Attorney to Notify any Court within Circuit before Which He Appears in Next Year of Sanctions Imposed in This Case — Leaving Open Other Remedies If Monetary Sanction Not Paid within 60 Days

From Gallop v. Cheney, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20862 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2011) — imposing sanctions under § 1927, Rule 38, and the inherent power of the Court: *** (2) Gallop [client] is hereby ADMONISHED that the submission of future frivolous filings may result in sanctions. (3) Dennis Cunningham, Mustapha Ndanusa, and Wi ...
From Gallop v. Cheney, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20862 (2d Cir. Oct. 14, 2011) — imposing sanctions under § 1927, Rule 38, and the inherent power of the Court: *** (2) Gallop [client] is hereby ADMONISHED that the submission of…
Continue Reading

Non-Party May Not Intervene to Seek Relief Identical to That Already Being Sought by Party — Mere Fact That Lawsuit May Impede Non-Party’s Ability to Recover in Separate Suit Insufficient Grounds to Intervene — First-to File Rule

Worthington v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144369 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2011): In these purported class actions brought in the above-captioned matters, Robert Worthington, Dino Rikos, and Troy Yuncker ("Plaintiffs") allege that Bayer Heathcare LLC ("Bayer") deceptively advertised and marketed several of Bayer's colon health p ...
Worthington v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144369 (D.N.J. Dec. 15, 2011): In these purported class actions brought in the above-captioned matters, Robert Worthington, Dino Rikos, and Troy Yuncker (“Plaintiffs”) allege that Bayer Heathcare LLC (“Bayer”) deceptively advertised…
Continue Reading

May District Court in District in Which Subpoena Issues Remit Motion to Quash to Court Presiding over Underlying Litigation? Circuit Split

Nat’l Benefit Programs, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137946 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2011): There is a split in the Circuits regarding whether the court sitting in the district where the subpoena issued may properly exercise its discretion to "remit" a motion to quash for ruling by the court where the underlying li ...
Nat’l Benefit Programs, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137946 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 1, 2011): There is a split in the Circuits regarding whether the court sitting in the district where the subpoena issued may properly exercise…
Continue Reading

State Does Not Waive Sovereign Immunity by Removing Case to Federal Court unless Removal Confers Unfair Advantage — Circuit Split

Bergemann v. R.I. Dep’t of Envt’l Mgmt., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25148 (1st Cir. Dec. 20, 2011): This appeal poses a question that has divided the circuits. The question, which is a matter of first impression for this court, is whether a state waives its sovereign immunity to a pleaded claim by removing that claim to the federal court ...
Bergemann v. R.I. Dep’t of Envt’l Mgmt., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 25148 (1st Cir. Dec. 20, 2011): This appeal poses a question that has divided the circuits. The question, which is a matter of first impression for this court, is…
Continue Reading

RICO — Financial Injury Wholly Derivative of Personal Injury ≠ Injury to Business or Property — Circuit Split as to Whether Certain Pecuniary Losses from Personal Injuries Confer RICO Standing

Alexander v Boone Hosp. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145354 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011): On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging receipt of a defective pacemaker manufactured by former defendant Medtronic, Inc., and implanted at Boone Hospital Center in 2007. *** Plaintiff brings two counts against current Defendants ...
Alexander v Boone Hosp. Ctr., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145354 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011): On April 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit alleging receipt of a defective pacemaker manufactured by former defendant Medtronic, Inc., and implanted at Boone Hospital…
Continue Reading

Securities — Circuit Split as to Whether Plaintiff or Defendant Must Show Control Person’s Good/Bad Faith and Inducement, Vel Non, of Primary Violation under Section 20(a)

Poptech, LP v. Stewardship Credit Arbitrage Fund, LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Conn. 2011): Section 20(a) [of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a),] provides that a controlling person is liable unless the defendant acted in good faith and did not induce the primary violation. See 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a). But Section 20(a) does ...
Poptech, LP v. Stewardship Credit Arbitrage Fund, LLC, 792 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Conn. 2011): Section 20(a) [of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a),] provides that a controlling person is liable unless the defendant acted in good faith…
Continue Reading

Removal — When Does a State Court Complaint that Fails to Recite a Damages Number over $75,000 Trigger § 1446(b)’s 30-Day Period? Caselaw Split

Napier v. Humana Marketpoint, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139114 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2011): In Chapman [v. Powermatic, Inc., 939 F.2d 160], the Fifth Circuit held that a plaintiff's original complaint triggers 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)'s thirty-day clock "only when [the] pleading affirmatively reveals on its face that the plaintiff is see ...
Napier v. Humana Marketpoint, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139114 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2011): In Chapman [v. Powermatic, Inc., 939 F.2d 160], the Fifth Circuit held that a plaintiff’s original complaint triggers 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)’s thirty-day clock “only…
Continue Reading

Simple Mistake, Corrected when Realized, Forms No Ground for Rule 11 Sanctions

Boone v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23813 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011): We review a district court's decision regarding sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 11 for an abuse of discretion. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009); Jones v. Int'l Riding Helmets, Ltd., 49 F.3d 692, 694 (11th Cir. 19 ...
Boone v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23813 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2011): We review a district court’s decision regarding sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 11 for an abuse of discretion. Nicholson v.…
Continue Reading
Previous332333334335336337338Next

Recent Posts

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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