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

No Requirement of Daubert Hearing If Movant Does Not Present Opposing Expert Evidence — Instruction to Disregard Infirm Expert Evidence Suffices to Avoid Mistrial Absent Undue Prejudice

From United States v. Bachynsky, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3377 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2011): There is no requirement that a Daubert hearing always be held. See United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004); Hansen, 262 F.3d at 1234. As is well known, the trial court's obligation under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ...
From United States v. Bachynsky, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3377 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2011): There is no requirement that a Daubert hearing always be held. See United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004); Hansen, 262…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Motion that Requires Reference to Dismissal Motion for Details of Frivolousness Fails Specificity Requirement of Rule 11 — At Least in the Absence of Explicit Incorporation by Reference

From Miller v. Saint Felix, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2617 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011) (decided under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, which is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11): In its entirety, the sanctions motion read as follows: 1. The factual and legal assertions set forth in the Plaintiff's compl ...
From Miller v. Saint Felix, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2617 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011) (decided under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, which is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11): In its entirety, the sanctions motion read as follows:…
Continue Reading

Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Protects Communications with Unlicensed Counselor at Sex Abuse Clinic Who Works under the Supervision of a Licensed Social Worker

From Richardson v. Sexual Assault Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822 (D. Md. Feb. 8, 2011): This Memorandum and Order addresses the claims of privilege that counsel for Defendants Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc. ("SARC"), Luiza Caiazzo-Nutter, and Stephanie Powers made at the December 7, 201 ...
From Richardson v. Sexual Assault Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822 (D. Md. Feb. 8, 2011): This Memorandum and Order addresses the claims of privilege that counsel for Defendants Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc. (“SARC”),…
Continue Reading

The Finality Requirement for Judicial Review of an Award under the Federal Arbitration Act — 2, Maybe 3, Exceptions

From Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Irving Shipbuilding Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12487 (D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2011): Under the FAA "a district court does not have the power to review an interlocutory ruling by an arbitration panel." Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir. 1980). "The language of the Act is unambiguous: ...
From Pearl Seas Cruises, LLC v. Irving Shipbuilding Inc, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12487 (D. Conn. Feb. 9, 2011): Under the FAA “a district court does not have the power to review an interlocutory ruling by an arbitration panel.” Michaels…
Continue Reading

Default Judgment Procedure

From Enobakhare v. Carpoint, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141481 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011): Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: "[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter ...
From Enobakhare v. Carpoint, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141481 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011): Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead…
Continue Reading

Duties of 30(b)(6) Witnesses and the Organizations Presenting Them — Trial Counsel Normally Inappropriate 30(b)(6) Witness — Unprepared Witness = Failure to Appear — Witness Cannot Testify Exclusively from Document Prepared by Litigation Counsel

From In re Neurontin Antitrust Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6977 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011): Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), "a party may take a deposition of an individual who is designated to testify on behalf of a company, corporation or government agency." *** Use of Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses is meant to benefit the discovery process by ...
From In re Neurontin Antitrust Litig., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6977 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2011): Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6), “a party may take a deposition of an individual who is designated to testify on behalf of a company, corporation or…
Continue Reading

Request for Admission to Authenticate Website Evidence — Attaching Printouts Not Enough — Responding “Document Speaks for Itself” to RFA “Evasive” — Private Websites Not Self-Authenticating

From Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16977 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011): Request No. 163 asks Defendants to admit that "the reviews attached hereto as Exhibit C were posted on "resellerratings.com." Request No. 178 asks Defendants to admit that "the reviews attached hereto as Exhibit D were posted on "Eopinions.com." Acc ...
From Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Christenson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16977 (D. Nev. Feb. 7, 2011): Request No. 163 asks Defendants to admit that “the reviews attached hereto as Exhibit C were posted on “resellerratings.com.” Request No. 178 asks Defendants…
Continue Reading

Refusal to Strike Expert Report Despite Failure to Disclose Compensation at All and Prior Testimony Accurately in Initial, Unsigned Report — OK to Rely on Counsel for Expert’s Case List

From White v. City of Chicago, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15722 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2011): Plaintiff notes that when Defendants submitted the expert reports in this case, they did not disclose the compensation being paid to either doctor. In Plaintiff's view, "the prejudice [from this omission] would be incurable" because "it is simply too ...
From White v. City of Chicago, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15722 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 16, 2011): Plaintiff notes that when Defendants submitted the expert reports in this case, they did not disclose the compensation being paid to either doctor. In…
Continue Reading

Nevada Would Follow New York’s Strict Application of In Pari Delicto — Erie Prediction — Pennsylvania’s More Liberal Rule Questioned

From USCAM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16123 (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2011): Under Nevada law, the knowledge of an officer or agent is imputed to the corporation when the agent obtains the knowledge "while acting in the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority, and the corporation is ...
From USCAM Liquidating Trust v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16123 (D. Nev. Feb. 16, 2011): Under Nevada law, the knowledge of an officer or agent is imputed to the corporation when the agent obtains the knowledge…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Alone Inadequate to Allow a Party That Has Produced No Evidence to Survive Summary Judgment

From Unique Indus., Inc. v. Alberta Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15884 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2011): The plaintiff ... argues that the defendant should not be granted summary judgment because Sharma's patent agent, Seaby, failed to maintain the original drawings that Sharma allegedly sent to Seaby in connection with the patents at issue.... In ...
From Unique Indus., Inc. v. Alberta Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15884 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 2011): The plaintiff … argues that the defendant should not be granted summary judgment because Sharma’s patent agent, Seaby, failed to maintain the original drawings…
Continue Reading
Previous354355356357358359360Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

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)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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