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

In Action Substantively Governed by State Law, Waiver of Privilege Is Determined by State Law, But Waiver of Work Product Protection Is Governed by Federal Law — Counsel Not Permitted to Make Independent Claim of Work Product Where Client Has Waived

From SEC v. McNaul, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62932 (D. Kan. June 14, 2011): Waiver of attorney-client privilege is governed by state law, while waiver of the work product protection is governed by federal law. Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695, 702 n.10 (10th Cir. 1998). Note: This ...
From SEC v. McNaul, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62932 (D. Kan. June 14, 2011): Waiver of attorney-client privilege is governed by state law, while waiver of the work product protection is governed by federal law. Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp…
Continue Reading

Filing Second Action to Avoid Seeking Leave of Court to Amend Is Subject to § 1927 Sanction in First Action (Despite General Rule that Filing a Complaint Doesn’t Violate § 1927 Because It Isn’t Multiplicative)

From Thurmond v. Wayne County, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11817 (6th Cir. June 10,2011): On March 8, 2007, Thurmond filed a complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court, which Wayne County removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. After almost one year and a litany of discovery motions from both parties, Thurmond ...
From Thurmond v. Wayne County, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11817 (6th Cir. June 10,2011): On March 8, 2007, Thurmond filed a complaint in the Wayne County Circuit Court, which Wayne County removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern…
Continue Reading

Interim Injunctive Award Issued by Emergency Arbitrator Pending Constitution of, and Subject to Review by, Arbitration Panel Is Not Sufficiently Final to Permit Judicial Review

From Chinmax Med. Sys. v. Alere San Diego, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57889 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2011): On October 13, 2010, Chinmax filed a demand for arbitration with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution division of the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). On October 15, 2010, Alere filed a request for an emergency inte ...
From Chinmax Med. Sys. v. Alere San Diego, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57889 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2011): On October 13, 2010, Chinmax filed a demand for arbitration with the International Centre for Dispute Resolution division of the American…
Continue Reading

Indirect Injury from Patent-Holder’s Fraud on Patent Office, Rendering Contract to Sell Defectively Patented Product Less Valuable, ≠ RICO Injury; Fraud on Patent Office ≠ Predicate Act

From Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. v. Rutgers Univ., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58053 (D.N.J. May 31, 2011): This matter arises out of a now-terminated, exclusive license agreement through which Plaintiff Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. ("JAFI") was authorized by Defendant Rutgers University ("Rutgers") to sell the latter's patented varieties of ...
From Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. v. Rutgers Univ., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58053 (D.N.J. May 31, 2011): This matter arises out of a now-terminated, exclusive license agreement through which Plaintiff Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc. (“JAFI”) was authorized by Defendant Rutgers…
Continue Reading

Legal Malpractice Claim Alleging Misconduct During Representation Is Not Duplicative of Fiduciary Duty Claim Alleging Misconduct After Termination of Representation

From Neuman v. Frank, 82 A.D. 3d 1642 (4th Dep’t 2011): "A cause of action for legal malpractice must be based on the existence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of the alleged malpractice' " (TVGA Eng'g, Surveying, P.C. v Gallick [appeal No. 2], 45 A.D.3d 1252, 1256, 846 N.Y.S.2d 506; see Compis Servs., Inc. v Greenman, ...
From Neuman v. Frank, 82 A.D. 3d 1642 (4th Dep’t 2011): “A cause of action for legal malpractice must be based on the existence of an attorney-client relationship at the time of the alleged malpractice’ ” (TVGA Eng’g, Surveying, P.C.…
Continue Reading

Factors for Determining Whether a Current Decision Should Be Given Retroactive Effect in a Civil Case

From Graff v. Town of Pembroke, NH, 447 B.R. 51, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 783 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2011): Federal courts traditionally looked to three factors in determining whether a current decision in a civil case should be given retroactive effect or only apply prospectively. Those factors are: (1) whether the more recent rule or deci ...
From Graff v. Town of Pembroke, NH, 447 B.R. 51, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 783 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2011): Federal courts traditionally looked to three factors in determining whether a current decision in a civil case should be given retroactive effect or…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Perlman Doctrine, Which Permits Immediate Review of Order Requiring Third Party to Disclose Privileged Information It Possesses, No Longer Applies If Privilege Holder Is a Party, after Mohawk

From Hold-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10379 (6th Cir. May 24, 2011): One such justification for an immediate appeal exists in situations "where a party claiming a privilege is 'powerless to avert the mischief of the order.'" Ross, 423 F.3d at 599 (quoting Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 13 (1918)). "Under P ...
From Hold-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10379 (6th Cir. May 24, 2011): One such justification for an immediate appeal exists in situations “where a party claiming a privilege is ‘powerless to avert the mischief of the…
Continue Reading

The Plaintiff’s Heavy Burden of Proof in a Legal Malpractice Action under New York Law — Good Quote

From Sabalza v.Salgado, 2011 NY Slip Op 4732, 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657 (1st Dep’t June 7, 2011): A plaintiff's burden of proof in a legal malpractice action is a heavy one (Lindenman v Kreitzer, 7 AD3d 30 [2004]). The plaintiff must first prove the hypothetical outcome of the underlying litigation and, then, the attorney's lia ...
From Sabalza v.Salgado, 2011 NY Slip Op 4732, 2011 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4657 (1st Dep’t June 7, 2011): A plaintiff’s burden of proof in a legal malpractice action is a heavy one (Lindenman v Kreitzer, 7 AD3d 30 [2004]).…
Continue Reading

Forum Non Conveniens — Alternate Forum Must Have Jurisdiction over All Defendants — Movant Must Also Establish the Claims and Remedies Available There

From Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54463 (D.D.C. May 23, 2011): a. Adequacy of alternative forum In order to establish that an alternative forum is adequate, the defendant must first establish that an alternative forum is available where the plaintiff may bring his claims. Normally, ...
From Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54463 (D.D.C. May 23, 2011): a. Adequacy of alternative forum In order to establish that an alternative forum is adequate, the defendant must first establish that an alternative…
Continue Reading

RICO — Enactment of Restrictive Legislation and Law Enforcement Activity against Other Similarly-Situated Companies Are Intervening Acts Breaking Proximate Causation between Predicate Acts and Diminution of Stock Price

From Wodka v. Causeway Capital Mgmt. LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9959 (9th Cir. May 16, 2011): To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must show "that a RICO predicate offense 'not only was a "but for" cause of his injury, but was the proximate cause as well.'" Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 983, 989 (2010) ...
From Wodka v. Causeway Capital Mgmt. LLC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9959 (9th Cir. May 16, 2011): To state a civil RICO claim, a plaintiff must show “that a RICO predicate offense ‘not only was a “but for” cause of…
Continue Reading
Previous353354355356357358359Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

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