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

Strictures of Twombly and Iqbal Apply to Jurisdictional Allegations and to Affirmative Defenses

From Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34925 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2011): The Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal did not specifically address the pleading requirements for jurisdiction, and the issue has not been resolved by the Fourth Circuit. However, this issue of first impression, has, at ...
From Haley Paint Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34925 (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2011): The Supreme Court’s decisions in Twombly and Iqbal did not specifically address the pleading requirements for jurisdiction, and the…
Continue Reading

Who Can Waive a Municipality’s Privilege? Police Chief Is Sufficiently Senior to Do So — His Extrajudicial Disclosure to Press Effects Waiver, But Scope of Waiver Is Modest — Partial vs Selective Waiver

From Sullivan v. Warminster Township, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22379 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2011): With regard to the question of whether Chief Murphy could waive the attorney-client and the work-product privilege in the first place, neither Plaintiffs nor the Warminster Defendants have addressed the issue of who in a municipal corporation can ...
From Sullivan v. Warminster Township, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22379 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2011): With regard to the question of whether Chief Murphy could waive the attorney-client and the work-product privilege in the first place, neither Plaintiffs nor the…
Continue Reading

Court Has Inherent Power to Order Client Representative with Settlement Authority to Attend Settlement Conference — Court May Adopt Local Rules to This Effect under Rule 16

From Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. GMC Land Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100523 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2007) (discussing an inherent power other than to sanction): A court has the inherent power to direct parties to produce individuals with full settlement authority at pretrial settlement conferences. In re Novak, 932 F.2d 1397, 1407 ...
From Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. GMC Land Servs., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100523 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 5, 2007) (discussing an inherent power other than to sanction): A court has the inherent power to direct parties to produce individuals with…
Continue Reading

Experts: Factual Basis for Expert Testimony Must Satisfy Court under Rules 104 and 703

From Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33581 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2011): As recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, while an expert's methodology is required to pass muster under Rule 702, the data underlying the expert's opinion must pass muster under Rules 104 and 703. ...
From Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33581 (D. Del. Mar. 30, 2011): As recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, while an expert’s methodology is required to pass muster under…
Continue Reading

The Second Circuit’s “Inclusionary Rule” for Other Crimes Evidence under Rule 404(b)

From U.S. v. Aleynikov, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011): Although evidence of other crimes "is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith," it can be used "for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, ...
From U.S. v. Aleynikov, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011): Although evidence of other crimes “is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith,” it can be used…
Continue Reading

RICO: Economic “Extortion” under the Hobbs Act

From Rennell v. R. E. Fund Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6054 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2011): Distinguishing between hard bargaining and extortion can be difficult. See, e.g., Stuart P. Green, Lying, Cheating, and Stealing: A Moral Theory of White-Collar Crime ch. 17 (2006). But the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Enmons ...
From Rennell v. R. E. Fund Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6054 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 2011): Distinguishing between hard bargaining and extortion can be difficult. See, e.g., Stuart P. Green, Lying, Cheating, and Stealing: A Moral Theory…
Continue Reading

Journalist’s Privilege — Differing Levels of Protection for Confidential and Nonconfidential Information — Second Circuit Declines to Resolve Whether Privilege Derives from First Amendment

From United States v. Treacy, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4623 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2011): It is settled law in this Circuit, at least in the civil context, that a journalist possesses a qualified privilege protecting him or her from the compelled disclosure of even nonconfidential materials. See Chevron Corp. v. Berlinger, 629 F.3d 297, 306-07 (2 ...
From United States v. Treacy, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4623 (2d Cir. Mar. 9, 2011): It is settled law in this Circuit, at least in the civil context, that a journalist possesses a qualified privilege protecting him or her from…
Continue Reading

Removal: Motion to Dismiss May Serve as Consent — Reliance on Co-Defendants’ Brief May Suffice — Defect in Consent Curable within 30 Days of Filing It

Christiansen v. West Branch Community School Dist., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32621 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 28, 2011): On September 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Petition at Law ("Complaint")*** in the Iowa District Court for Cedar County***. On September 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition at Law ("Amended Complaint")***. On October ...
Christiansen v. West Branch Community School Dist., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32621 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 28, 2011): On September 17, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Petition at Law (“Complaint”)*** in the Iowa District Court for Cedar County***. On September 20, 2010,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Does Not Confer a Cause of Action — Successive Complaints Stating Previously-Rejected Legal Theories = Harassment

From Corrigan v. Pflanz, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5564 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2011): In these consolidated appeals, John L. Corrigan appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants abused Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in two prior actions. *** The district court properly dismissed Corr ...
From Corrigan v. Pflanz, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5564 (9th Cir. Mar. 8, 2011): In these consolidated appeals, John L. Corrigan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging that defendants abused Federal Rule of Civil…
Continue Reading

RICO Enterprise Not Stated by Rimless Hub-and-Spoke Configuration Where Members of the Alleged Association-in-Fact Enterprise Have No Relationships with One Another

From Mega Concrete, Inc. v. Smith, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30789 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2011): Plaintiffs Mega Concrete, Inc., Mega Sitework, LLC, and Capponi Enterprises, Inc., filed suit against two former employees, Michael Smith and Kimberly Lawson, as well as six individual defendants and six corporate defendants, who they allege conspired ...
From Mega Concrete, Inc. v. Smith, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30789 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2011): Plaintiffs Mega Concrete, Inc., Mega Sitework, LLC, and Capponi Enterprises, Inc., filed suit against two former employees, Michael Smith and Kimberly Lawson, as well…
Continue Reading
Previous349350351352353354355Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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