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

Improper to Interrupt Deposition to Confer with Deponent — By Answering Question About Conference, Privilege May Be Waived or Vitiated by Crime-Fraud — “Speculation” Objection = Improper Coaching — In Camera Meeting with Witness

From LM Ins. Corp. v. ACEO, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79192 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2011): [T]he plaintiff took the deposition of Natalie Finke, an employee of the Defendants. At the deposition, Ms. Finke testified that she thought that "an individual broker" received "return" (i.e., kickback) to which he was not entitled, and she "defini ...
From LM Ins. Corp. v. ACEO, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79192 (N.D. Ill. July 21, 2011): [T]he plaintiff took the deposition of Natalie Finke, an employee of the Defendants. At the deposition, Ms. Finke testified that she thought that…
Continue Reading

RICO Claims Dependent on Allegation that Insurers Charged More than Permitted by State Law Dismissed for Failure to Exhaust Mandatory State Administrative Remedies for Excessive Rate Charges

From Mitchell-Tracey v. United Gen. Title Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15952 (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Plaintiff-Appellants are Maryland homeowners who purchased title insurance from Defendant-Appellees First American Title Insurance Company and United General Title Insurance Company (collectively, "defendants") when they refinanced th ...
From Mitchell-Tracey v. United Gen. Title Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15952 (4th Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Plaintiff-Appellants are Maryland homeowners who purchased title insurance from Defendant-Appellees First American Title Insurance Company and United General Title Insurance Company (collectively,…
Continue Reading

Standard of Review of Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) — Automatic Stay Does Not Preclude Imposition of Sanctions for Frivolous Removal, Post-Petition, of Action Filed Pre-Petition

From Garrett v. Cook, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14403 (10th Cir. July 14, 2011): The district court awarded fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which reads as follows: (c) A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 days afte ...
From Garrett v. Cook, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14403 (10th Cir. July 14, 2011): The district court awarded fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), which reads as follows: (c) A motion to remand the case on the…
Continue Reading

Failure to Withdraw a Claim or Respond to Discovery Is Not Sanctionable under Rule 11 — Continuing to Litigate after Baselessness Is Clear Is Sanctionable — No Right to Condition Dismissal of Baseless Claim on Stipulation from Adversary

From Dearborn Street Bldg. Assocs., LLC v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 411 F. App'x 847 (6th Cir. 2011): On September 16, 2009, Dearborn prevailed on its fraudulent transfer claims with respect to defendants D&T and PCI and received a monetary judgment. However, in an opinion dated September 30, 2009, the district court granted Hunting ...
From Dearborn Street Bldg. Assocs., LLC v. Huntington Nat’l Bank, 411 F. App’x 847 (6th Cir. 2011): On September 16, 2009, Dearborn prevailed on its fraudulent transfer claims with respect to defendants D&T and PCI and received a monetary judgment.…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split as to Whether Res Judicata Can Be Afforded in District Court to Bankruptcy Court Judgment on Non-Core Claim — Collateral Estoppel OK — Impact of Stern Unresolved — No Collateral Attack Based on Standing

From Matrix IV, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15537 (7th Cir. July 28, 2011): A. Origin of the Dispute ***Stylemaster was and Matrix continues to be in the molded-plastics industry. Starting in 1994, Stylemaster bought plastic injection molds from an outside vendor and had them shipped direct ...
From Matrix IV, Inc. v. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chi., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15537 (7th Cir. July 28, 2011): A. Origin of the Dispute ***Stylemaster was and Matrix continues to be in the molded-plastics industry. Starting…
Continue Reading

F. R. App. 38 — Fact that Complaint May Have Been Frivolous when Filed Does Not Mean Appeal from a Dismissal Is Frivolous — Must be “Totally Lacking in Merit”

From Erchonia Corp. v. Bissoon, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9719 (2d Cir. May 11, 2011): Appellees move this Court for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 arguing principally that Appellant's appeal was frivolous for the same reasons the underlying lawsuit was frivolous — "Erchonia had . . . virtually no physical ev ...
From Erchonia Corp. v. Bissoon, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9719 (2d Cir. May 11, 2011): Appellees move this Court for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 arguing principally that Appellant’s appeal was frivolous for the same reasons…
Continue Reading

Bank Owes No Duty of Care to Non-Customers, Including No Duty to Detect Fraudulent Conduct of Its Customers

From Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. A Plus, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85179 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 2, 2011): PSO brought this action to recover sums it paid to A Plus, Inc. a/k/a Jarvis Furniture a/k/a A Plus Spraying (collectively, "A Plus") pursuant to invoices submitted to PSO by A Plus and/or its owners, defendants Randel R. Stone and Kimb ...
From Public Serv. Co. of Okla. v. A Plus, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85179 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 2, 2011): PSO brought this action to recover sums it paid to A Plus, Inc. a/k/a Jarvis Furniture a/k/a A Plus Spraying…
Continue Reading

Standards of Admissibility for Expert Testimony as to Ultimate Issue, Credibility Determinations and State of Mind

From Quagliarello v. Dewees, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78870 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2011) (§ 1983 action against a police officer): Plaintiff's police expert Walter Signorelli ("Signorelli") filed reports in this case on July 31, 2010.... Defendants move to preclude Signorelli from testifying to or otherwise presenting evidence of opinions tha ...
From Quagliarello v. Dewees, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78870 (E.D. Pa. July 20, 2011) (§ 1983 action against a police officer): Plaintiff’s police expert Walter Signorelli (“Signorelli”) filed reports in this case on July 31, 2010…. Defendants move to preclude…
Continue Reading

Verified Pleadings Satisfy Evidentiary Standard of Rule 56, Particularly in Pro Se Cases

From Herrington v. Spruill, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122700 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2008): Herrington's Response (DE# 46) and Statement of Facts (DE# 47) are not in affidavit form, and are not themselves sworn under penalty of perjury. Relevant facts stated in Herrington's Response, however, are also stated by him in his sworn Amendment to the c ...
From Herrington v. Spruill, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122700 (S.D. Fla. June 5, 2008): Herrington’s Response (DE# 46) and Statement of Facts (DE# 47) are not in affidavit form, and are not themselves sworn under penalty of perjury. Relevant facts…
Continue Reading

Production of Email in Discovery Authenticates the Email

Bruno v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59795 (W.D. Pa. June 3, 2011): Plaintiff argues that the series of emails between Ms. Menster and Mr. Thomas have not been properly au-thenticated. *** "A party to litigation that produces documents during discovery in that litigation thereby authenticates the documents it has produced." ...
Bruno v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59795 (W.D. Pa. June 3, 2011): Plaintiff argues that the series of emails between Ms. Menster and Mr. Thomas have not been properly au-thenticated. *** “A party to litigation that produces…
Continue Reading
Previous337338339340341342343Next

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