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

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

Split as to Whether Magistrate Judge May Order § 1782 Discovery — Deposition and Documents May Be Compelled from Expert for Party to BIT Arbitration under § 1782

From In re Application of Rep. of Ecuador, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143796 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2010): This is an application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) to issue a subpoena to Robert E. Hinchee, Ph.D., for a deposition and production of documents for use in a foreign proceeding, that is, Chevron Corporation and Texaco Pet ...
From In re Application of Rep. of Ecuador, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143796 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2010): This is an application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) to issue a subpoena to Robert E. Hinchee, Ph.D.,…
Continue Reading

Offer to Settle Class Action for Value of Lead Plaintiff’s Claim after Class Certification Motion Filed Does Not Moot Action or Subsequent Action against Affiliate of First Defendant That Should Have Been Named in First Action

From Brodsky v. HumanaDental Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117652 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2011 From July 2008 until December 2009, plaintiff Lawrence Brodsky ("Brodsky") pursued a class action lawsuit ("2008 Lawsuit") against Humana, Inc. ("Humana"), the parent company of HumanaDental Insurance Company ("Humana Dental"), alleging violatio ...
From Brodsky v. HumanaDental Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117652 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2011 From July 2008 until December 2009, plaintiff Lawrence Brodsky (“Brodsky”) pursued a class action lawsuit (“2008 Lawsuit”) against Humana, Inc. (“Humana”), the parent company…
Continue Reading
Previous338339340341342343344Next

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