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

Dismissal with Prejudice Appropriate for Failure to Plead Properly after “Repeated Opportunities” — No Right to Amend If Failure to Particularize Has Been Called to Plaintiff’s Attention but Not Cured

From Destfino v. Reiswig, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1375 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011): The district court's "decision to dismiss the [second] amended complaint with prejudice was appropriate in light of [plaintiffs'] repeated failure to cure the deficiencies in [their] pleadings." *** It is well-established that a court may dismis ...
From Destfino v. Reiswig, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1375 (9th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011): The district court’s “decision to dismiss the [second] amended complaint with prejudice was appropriate in light of [plaintiffs’] repeated failure to cure the deficiencies in [their]…
Continue Reading

Primary Jurisdiction — Applicaion

From Chavez v. Nestle USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9773 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011): [T]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to be invoked "only if a claim 'requires resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated issue that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency,' [citation], and if 'prot ...
From Chavez v. Nestle USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9773 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011): [T]he doctrine of primary jurisdiction is to be invoked “only if a claim ‘requires resolution of an issue of first impression, or of a…
Continue Reading

Law Firm Is Not Sufficiently Distinct from 3 of Its Partners to Constitute RICO Enterprise — Firm’s Activities Limited to Conducting Customary Legal Business

From Thomas v. Thompson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5600 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 20, 2011): The enterprise must be "an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages." *** "Moreover, plaintiffs must plead specific facts, not mere conclusory allegations, which establish the enterprise." *** Plaintiff described the ...
From Thomas v. Thompson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5600 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 20, 2011): The enterprise must be “an entity separate and apart from the pattern of activity in which it engages.” *** “Moreover, plaintiffs must plead specific facts, not…
Continue Reading

Failure to Prosecute under Rule 41(b) — Five Factors

From Katina v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4594 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011): A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to comply with a district court's local rules. *** Specifically, the court must conside ...
From Katina v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4594 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2011): A court must weigh five factors in determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with a court…
Continue Reading

Statement Made in Mediation Admitting Liability for Wrong That Is Unrelated to the Subject of the Mediation Is Not Excluded by Fed.R.Evid. 408 or the Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act

From Deluca v. Allied Domecq Quick Serv. Restaurants, 03CV5142(JFB)(AKT), 2006 WL 2713944 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2006): Defendant argued in support of its motion in limine that Fed.R.Civ.P. 408 and the ADRA [28 U.S.C. §§ 651-668] protect communications such as the one at issue here [an alleged admission of a tortious act separate and apar ...
From Deluca v. Allied Domecq Quick Serv. Restaurants, 03CV5142(JFB)(AKT), 2006 WL 2713944 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2006): Defendant argued in support of its motion in limine that Fed.R.Civ.P. 408 and the ADRA [28 U.S.C. §§ 651-668] protect communications such as the…
Continue Reading

Burford Abstention — General Principles — Good Quotes (Anti-Abstention)

From Chico Serv. Station, Inc. v. SOL Puerto Rico Ltd., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1568 (1st Cir. Jan. 26, 2011): A. Burford Abstention 1. General Principles Abstention occupies an uneasy position in the jurisprudence of federal court jurisdiction. As the common refrain goes, "federal courts have a ' ...
From Chico Serv. Station, Inc. v. SOL Puerto Rico Ltd., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1568 (1st Cir. Jan. 26, 2011): A. Burford Abstention 1. General Principles Abstention occupies an uneasy position in the jurisprudence of federal court jurisdiction. As the…
Continue Reading

Putative Class Representative Lacks Standing to Appeal Denial of Motion to Add New Plaintiff Who Would Have Standing to Bring Certain Claim — Only Prospective New Plaintiff Has Standing

From Thomas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011): Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert and Amanda Thomas appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies, Inc. and Metlife Securities, Inc. (sometimes collectively referred ...
From Thomas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2024 (10th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011): Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert and Amanda Thomas appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Metropolitan Life Insurance Companies, Inc.…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Standards (Third Circuit) — Court Exercises Caution to Avoid Chilling Novel Theories

From Premier Pork, LLC. V. Westin Packaged Meats, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1262 (3d Cir. Jan. 19, 2011): Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 authorizes us to sanction an appellant who files a frivolous appeal by "award[ing] just damages and single or double costs to the appellee." Such damages are awarded in the case of a frivolous ...
From Premier Pork, LLC. V. Westin Packaged Meats, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1262 (3d Cir. Jan. 19, 2011): Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 authorizes us to sanction an appellant who files a frivolous appeal by “award[ing] just damages…
Continue Reading

CAFA — Court Is Limited to Face of Complaint in Determining Whether Certain Elements of “Local Controversy” Exception Apply — “Relief Sought” and “Alleged Conduct”

From Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1538 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011): Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), defendants may remove a diversity class action from state to federal court when, among other conditions, the parties are minimally diverse and the amo ...
From Coleman v. Estes Express Lines, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1538 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2011): Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), defendants may remove a diversity class…
Continue Reading

Inadvertent Waiver Cannot Effect a Subject Matter Waiver under Rule 502 — State Law Governs Privilege in Diversity Case but Federal Law Determines Waiver

From Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Am., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6065 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2011): On December 14, 2009, the plaintiff filed suit against T-Systems, her former employer, and Mihallik, her former manager, *** alleging state-law claims of a hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. ***< ...
From Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Am., Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6065 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2011): On December 14, 2009, the plaintiff filed suit against T-Systems, her former employer, and Mihallik, her former manager, *** alleging state-law claims of a…
Continue Reading
Previous356357358359360361362Next

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