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

Email from Consumer to Trademark Plaintiff’s Customer Service Department Admissible on Issue of Confusion under State of Mind Exception to Hearsay Rule

From T. Marzetti Co. v. Roskam Baking Co., No. 2:90 CV 584, 2010 WL 909582, at *2 (S.D. Ohio March 11, 2010): Roskam's Email Motion in Limine to prevent Marzetti from using an email dated July 13, 2009, sent from Diane Meale to Roskam's Customer Service Department (the “Meale Email”) as evidence in the likelihood of confusion an ...
From T. Marzetti Co. v. Roskam Baking Co., No. 2:90 CV 584, 2010 WL 909582, at *2 (S.D. Ohio March 11, 2010): Roskam’s Email Motion in Limine to prevent Marzetti from using an email dated July 13, 2009, sent from…
Continue Reading

Experts — Lack of Certification in Field Not Disqualifying — Expert’s Failure to Remember Every Document Reviewed Irrelevant, As Is Mistaken Understanding of Relevant Dates — Good Quote

From GE Capital Corp. v. Nichols, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46095 (D. Conn. April 29, 2011): As an initial matter, Bodeker appears well-qualified to render an opinion in this case. He has spent sixteen years in the concrete pumping industry, primarily in sales but also in marketing. *** Bodeker has sold or supervised the sale of over 1000 c ...
From GE Capital Corp. v. Nichols, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46095 (D. Conn. April 29, 2011): As an initial matter, Bodeker appears well-qualified to render an opinion in this case. He has spent sixteen years in the concrete pumping industry,…
Continue Reading

Factors in Determining Whether to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction Once Federal Jurisdiction Has Been Found Lacking — Ninth Circuit Articulation

From Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45489 (E.D. Cal. April 27, 2011): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); ...
From Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45489 (E.D. Cal. April 27, 2011): Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if “the district court has…
Continue Reading

Trial Subpoena Served on a Party Must Be Limited to Documents and Things Previously Disclosed, and Cannot Be Used to End Run Discovery Deadlines Set by Court

From Hatcher v. Precoat Metals, 271 F.R.D. 674, 675 (N.D. Ala. 2010): This matter is before the court for consideration of the motion of defendant Precoat Metals to quash a subpoena purportedly served in accord with the provisions of Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.... The subpoena seeks documents which, by their nature, are oth ...
From Hatcher v. Precoat Metals, 271 F.R.D. 674, 675 (N.D. Ala. 2010): This matter is before the court for consideration of the motion of defendant Precoat Metals to quash a subpoena purportedly served in accord with the provisions of Rule…
Continue Reading

Appeals — Affirming on Alternate Grounds Supported by the Record vs. Not Considering Issues that the District Court Did Not Reach

From New Mexico St. Investment Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7680 (9th Cir. April 14, 2011): [Footnote] 1. EY argues this Court can affirm "on any ground supported by the record, even if the district court did not rely on the ground." Livid Holdings, Ltd. v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 416 F.3d 940, 950 (9th C ...
From New Mexico St. Investment Council v. Ernst & Young LLP, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7680 (9th Cir. April 14, 2011): [Footnote] 1. EY argues this Court can affirm “on any ground supported by the record, even if the district…
Continue Reading

Neither State Action Doctrine Nor Implied Preemption Exemption to Antitrust Liability Apply to Actions/Regulatory Schemes of Foreign Nations

From In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49853 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011): This case involves allegations that 26 airlines engaged in a ten year international conspiracy to fix the prices of transpacific air passenger travel, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ...
From In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49853 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011): This case involves allegations that 26 airlines engaged in a ten year international conspiracy to fix the prices of transpacific air…
Continue Reading

Patents May Be Held Unenforceable as Spoliation Sanction — -Subjective Bad Faith for Inherent Power (Not “Should Have Known”) — Crime-Fraud Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Due to Spoliation (= Obstruction)

From Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9730 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011): Rambus Inc. ("Rambus") appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that the twelve Rambus patents asserted against Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Electronics, Inc., and Micron Semiconductor Produ ...
From Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9730 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011): Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that the twelve Rambus patents…
Continue Reading

Filing of Complaint May Violate § 1927 — Circuit Split

From Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1778 (Bankr. D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2011): Sanctions may be properly awarded against Khoudary and SSR under ... § 1927, as the Chapter 7 petition was plainly filed for an improper purpose. The Chapter 7 case was filed only 37 days after the dismissal of SSR's Chapter 11 case. Khoudary and ...
From Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc., 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 1778 (Bankr. D.N.J. Jan. 21, 2011): Sanctions may be properly awarded against Khoudary and SSR under … § 1927, as the Chapter 7 petition was plainly filed for an improper purpose. The…
Continue Reading

Notice of Appeal from Judgment Encompasses All Prior Rulings and Orders Where Appellant Does Not Designate Specific Determinations Only — Reference to One Order Does Not Preclude Appeal from Others

From Bentkowski v. Scene Magazine, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7912 (6th Cir. April 19, 2011): Bentkowski claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery and by striking his first amended complaint as a sanction. Appellees claim that we lack jurisdiction over these ap ...
From Bentkowski v. Scene Magazine, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7912 (6th Cir. April 19, 2011): Bentkowski claims that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for an extension of time to conduct discovery and by striking his…
Continue Reading

Sua Sponte Sanctions Under Rule 11 May Not Include an Award of Attorneys’ Fees to Opposing Counsel — Notice of Potential Rule 11 Sanctions ≠ Due Process Notice of Potential Inherent Power Sanctions

From Wright v. CompGeeks.com, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9133 (10th Cir. May 4, 2011): “The relevant section of Rule 11 states that a ‘sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of par ...
From Wright v. CompGeeks.com, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9133 (10th Cir. May 4, 2011): “The relevant section of Rule 11 states that a ‘sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on…
Continue Reading
Previous348349350351352353354Next

Recent Posts

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

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