Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

From In re Am. Express Merchants’ Litig., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4507 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2011): This case returns to us from the Supreme Court. ***[I]n In re American Express Merchants Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009) ... we considered the enforcement of a mandatory arbitration clause in a commercial contract also containing a "cl ...
From In re Am. Express Merchants’ Litig., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4507 (2d Cir. Mar. 8, 2011): This case returns to us from the Supreme Court. ***[I]n In re American Express Merchants Litigation, 554 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2009) ……
From Dearborn Street Building Assocs. v. Silverman & Morris, PLLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3287 (6th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011): In diversity cases, the question of whether an individual or entity is a necessary party is a procedural question governed by federal law. See Hooper v. Wolfe, 396 F.3d 744, 749 n.4 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing Provident Tr ...
From Dearborn Street Building Assocs. v. Silverman & Morris, PLLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3287 (6th Cir. Feb. 17, 2011): In diversity cases, the question of whether an individual or entity is a necessary party is a procedural question governed…
From Morrison Cohen LLP v. Parrish, 2011 NY Slip Op 30354U, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 335 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Feb. 9, 2011) (entering summary judgment for the plaintiff): Case law holds that where a non-frivolous claim or affirmative defense of legal malpractice is "inextricably intertwined with a claim for fees for the same representat ...
From Morrison Cohen LLP v. Parrish, 2011 NY Slip Op 30354U, 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 335 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Feb. 9, 2011) (entering summary judgment for the plaintiff): Case law holds that where a non-frivolous claim or affirmative defense…
A panel of the Second Circuit split last year on the question whether a magistrate judge possesses the power to issue sanctions, as opposed to merely recommending them. See Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2010) and our post of February 2, 2010. Under Rule 53(c)(2), special masters may impose non-contempt sanctions. It seems odd that there would be any que ...
A panel of the Second Circuit split last year on the question whether a magistrate judge possesses the power to issue sanctions, as opposed to merely recommending them. See Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2010) and our…
From Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. Astrazeneca Pharma., LP, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4960 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2011): These cases involve payments made by health insurers for 1 the prescription drug Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication manufactured and marketed in the United States by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP ("AstraZeneca"). Seroqu ...
From Ironworkers Local Union 68 v. Astrazeneca Pharma., LP, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4960 (11th Cir. Mar. 11, 2011): These cases involve payments made by health insurers for 1 the prescription drug Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication manufactured and marketed in…
From Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2908 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2011): After a ... magistrate judge held a settlement conference three weeks before the trial's scheduled start date, the parties stipulated to binding arbitration of Johnson's FCRA claim. The District Court entered the parties' stipulation as ...
From Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2908 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2011): After a … magistrate judge held a settlement conference three weeks before the trial’s scheduled start date, the parties stipulated to binding…
From Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22813 (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2011): This discovery dispute arises in a case in which Arizona Civil Rights Division ("ACRD") brought suit against Defendants Frito-Lay. The ACRD brought suit after investigating the complaints of discrimination brought by the Intervenor Shel ...
From Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22813 (D. Ariz. Mar. 7, 2011): This discovery dispute arises in a case in which Arizona Civil Rights Division (“ACRD”) brought suit against Defendants Frito-Lay. The ACRD brought…
From Jalbert v. Grautski, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119268 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2008): Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.1(c), a party's failure to disclose information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) will normally result in the party being barred from using that information or witness at the trial, unless the failure was substantially ...
From Jalbert v. Grautski, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119268 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2008): Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.1(c), a party’s failure to disclose information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) will normally result in the…
From Reid Road Municipal Utility Dist. No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd., 2011 Tex. LEXIS 190 (Tex. Sup. Ct. Mar. 11, 2011): In this case we address *** whether an employee of the corporate general partner of a limited partnership qualifies to testify about the fair market value of partnership property under either the Property Ow ...
From Reid Road Municipal Utility Dist. No. 2 v. Speedy Stop Food Stores, Ltd., 2011 Tex. LEXIS 190 (Tex. Sup. Ct. Mar. 11, 2011): In this case we address *** whether an employee of the corporate general partner of a…

Recent Posts

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)

Archives