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

Is Leave to Amend Complaint between Liability and Damages Phases of Bifurcated Trial Governed by Liberal Standard of Rule 15(a) or Tighter Standard of Rule 15(b)?

From SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Security Sys., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114178 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2011): Symantec's motion presents what appears to be an issue of first impression: whether leave to amend between the liability and damages phases of a bifurcated patent trial is subject to the liberal standard set forth in Federal Rule ...
From SRI Int’l Inc. v. Internet Security Sys., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114178 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2011): Symantec’s motion presents what appears to be an issue of first impression: whether leave to amend between the liability and damages…
Continue Reading

RICO — Competitors as Members of an Associated-in-Fact Enterprise

From Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118529 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011): Allianz next contends that because each FMO competes "aggressively, and at cross-purposes" with every other FMO, plaintiffs are unable to prove the "common purpose" element required by Boyle. Specifically, Allianz argues that "'[i]f ...
From Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118529 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011): Allianz next contends that because each FMO competes “aggressively, and at cross-purposes” with every other FMO, plaintiffs are unable to…
Continue Reading

Reliance on Internal Investigation as Affirmative Defense Effects Waiver Not Only of Report But Also Witness Interviews, Notes and Other Materials Protected by Privilege and Work Product

From Angelone v. Xerox Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109407 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2011): This Title VII employment discrimination action stems from plaintiff's employment with defendant Xerox. See Complaint (Docket # 1). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against because of her gender, subjected to a continuing host ...
From Angelone v. Xerox Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109407 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2011): This Title VII employment discrimination action stems from plaintiff’s employment with defendant Xerox. See Complaint (Docket # 1). Specifically, plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against…
Continue Reading

Contempt Sanctions for Violation of Protective Order — Giving Documents to Unauthorized Person with a Financial Incentive to Read Them = Contempt Notwithstanding Oral Direction Not to Read Them

From Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117607 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011): Enzo Biochem, Inc., Heiman Gross, Barry Weiner, Elazar Rabbani, Sharim Rabbani, John Deluca, Dean Engelhardt, and John Does 1-50 (the "Enzo Defendants") bring this motion for sanctions against plaintiff Paul Lewicki and his former counsel, Dan Brecher ...
From Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117607 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11, 2011): Enzo Biochem, Inc., Heiman Gross, Barry Weiner, Elazar Rabbani, Sharim Rabbani, John Deluca, Dean Engelhardt, and John Does 1-50 (the “Enzo Defendants”) bring this motion…
Continue Reading

Exceptions to Absolute Judicial Immunity from Suits for Money Damages Based on Judicial Acts

From Strand v. Dawson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115367 (C.D. Utah Oct. 4, 2011): Judges are shielded with absolute immunity from suits for money damages based on their judicial action. [Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S. Ct. 286, 116 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1991); Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 225-26, 108 S. Ct. 538, 98 L. Ed. 2d 555 (198 ...
From Strand v. Dawson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115367 (C.D. Utah Oct. 4, 2011): Judges are shielded with absolute immunity from suits for money damages based on their judicial action. [Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S. Ct.…
Continue Reading

Texas Law of Tortious Interference with Contract — What Is Good Faith? — Limits on Inherent Power Sanctions — Not Remedy for Underlying Misconduct or Conduct before Other Tribunals — Award Must Be ≤ Harm Caused

Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Settlement Purchasers, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116966 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011): This dispute involves two participants in the structured-settlement payment industry and a trade association representing companies that purchase structured settlements. Symetra Life Insurance Co. and Symetra Assigne ...
Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Nat’l Ass’n of Settlement Purchasers, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116966 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2011): This dispute involves two participants in the structured-settlement payment industry and a trade association representing companies that purchase structured settlements.…
Continue Reading

Liberal Construction of Pro Se Complaint vs. Mandatory Specificity — Violation of Rule 8(a) by Prolixity

From Bender v. City of N.Y., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103947 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 201): The present case has a long and complicated procedural history spanning numerous docket numbers and complaints. Plaintiff's many lawsuits against various individual and official defendants stem from her years-long feud with the 11th St. Bar, an allegedly ...
From Bender v. City of N.Y., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103947 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 201): The present case has a long and complicated procedural history spanning numerous docket numbers and complaints. Plaintiff’s many lawsuits against various individual and official defendants…
Continue Reading

Counsel Not Disqualified for Representing Former Executives of Corporate Client at Deposition — Anti-Solicitation Rule — Waiver by Not Objecting Despite Advance Knowledge of Representation

From Zarrella v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108229 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2011): During the course of this litigation, Plaintiff Zarrella's counsel advised Defendant Pacific Life's counsel of record, Enrique D. Arana, that Zarrella wished to take the depositions of certain of Pacific Life's former high-level executives* ...
From Zarrella v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108229 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2011): During the course of this litigation, Plaintiff Zarrella’s counsel advised Defendant Pacific Life’s counsel of record, Enrique D. Arana, that Zarrella wished to…
Continue Reading

Judicial Recusal Requires Bias from Extrajudicial Source — Rulings in Prior Cases Almost Never Sufficient — Judge Subject to Recusal If Objective Observer Would Doubt Impartiality

From Ocean-Oil Expert Witness, Inc. v. O’Dwyer, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20467 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2011) (affirming contempt sanction issued under inherent power): O'Dwyer argues that Judge Lemelle should have recused himself from sitting in this case because of his personal bias against O'Dwyer. We review a denial of a motion to recuse un ...
From Ocean-Oil Expert Witness, Inc. v. O’Dwyer, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20467 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2011) (affirming contempt sanction issued under inherent power): O’Dwyer argues that Judge Lemelle should have recused himself from sitting in this case because of…
Continue Reading

No Right to Attorneys’ Fees on Appeal for Defending Sanctions Award, Absent Sanctionable Conduct on Appeal — Appellate Fees Not “Caused” by Sanctionable Conduct Below — Sources of Bankruptcy Court Sanctions Power

From Franken v. Mukamal (In re Creative Desperation Inc.), 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20306 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011): Section 105 of Tile 11 of the United States Code imbues bankruptcy courts with the same inherent powers as federal district courts to sanction abusive conduct. In re Porto, 645 F.3d 1294, 1304 n.6 (11th Cir. 2011). T ...
From Franken v. Mukamal (In re Creative Desperation Inc.), 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20306 (11th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011): Section 105 of Tile 11 of the United States Code imbues bankruptcy courts with the same inherent powers as federal district…
Continue Reading
Previous339340341342343344345Next

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