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

Circuit Split as to Whether Failure to Provide 55(b)(2) Notice Renders a Default Judgment Void vs. Voidable — Factors Counseling against Opening Up Default

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…
Continue Reading

RICO Teleconference on December 6, 2011 — Differences between Federal and State RICO Statutes and Litigation

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,…
Continue Reading

While District Court May Not Bar Party from Filing a Motion, It May Construe a Detailed Premotion Letter as a Motion and Act on It, without Affording Opportunity to File Additional Papers

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…
Continue Reading

Attorney’s Call to Represented Party to Obtain Information to Effect Service Does Not Warrant Disqualification, But It Is Improper for Attorney to Rely on Anything Else Said on the Call

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…
Continue Reading

Reconsideration Standards

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…
Continue Reading

Granting Rule 12(f) Motion to Strike a “Drastic Remedy” Disfavored by the Courts

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…
Continue Reading

New York Bars Legal Malpractice-Based Claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress unless Defendant Unreasonably Threatened Plaintiff’s Physical Safety

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…
Continue Reading

In Action Alleging Misrepresentation Concerning Product, Problems and Complaints of Third Parties Prior to Contract of Sale Are Admissible to Show State of Mind of Defendant — High Standard for Success on Motion in Limine to Exclude

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…
Continue Reading

Treating Physician Must Provide 26(a)(2)(B) Expert Report If Opinions Extend Beyond Those Formed during Treatment — Presumptively Mandatory Sanctions — Particularly Broad Discretion as to Type

From Ghiorzi v Whitewater Pools & Spas, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125329 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011): Applying Rule 37(a)(3) and (c)(1) compels the conclusion that an expert's trial testimony should be automatically excluded if a party fails to strictly comply with the requirements of Rule 26(a)(2)(B) unless the court finds that there was ...
From Ghiorzi v Whitewater Pools & Spas, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125329 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011): Applying Rule 37(a)(3) and (c)(1) compels the conclusion that an expert’s trial testimony should be automatically excluded if a party fails to…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — State of Circuit Split as to Whether Hall Street Eliminates Manifest Disregard as a Ground for Vacating Arbitration Award

From Abbott v. Law Office of Patrick J. Mulligan, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19468 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2011): In the wake of Hall Street, the circuits have split as to whether manifest disregard of the law is still a viable ground on which to overturn an arbitration award. According to the Second, Sixth (in an unpublished decision) and ...
From Abbott v. Law Office of Patrick J. Mulligan, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19468 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2011): In the wake of Hall Street, the circuits have split as to whether manifest disregard of the law is still a…
Continue Reading
Previous336337338339340341342Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

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