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

Mediation Presentation Reviewed by Party to Refresh Recollection for Deposition Ordered Produced — 3-Part Test, and 9 Factors Considered, for Production under Rule 612

From Greenwood Realty, Inc. v. Action Realty, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2011): This matter is before the court on ‘[Defendants’] Motion to Compel ... [Plaintiffs] to produce an electronic copy of a 90 slide Power Point presentation first presented at the mediation of this case on September 13, 2010, and phot ...
From Greenwood Realty, Inc. v. Action Realty, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2011): This matter is before the court on ‘[Defendants’] Motion to Compel … [Plaintiffs] to produce an electronic copy of a 90 slide Power…
Continue Reading

Whether Notes Are “Securities” within the 1934 Act — Limitations of the 9-Month Duration Requirement

From Simmons Inv., Inc. v. Conversational Computing Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15962 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2011): [T]he Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the notes in question are securities. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 define the term "security" to include "any note." [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10)] However, in R ...
From Simmons Inv., Inc. v. Conversational Computing Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15962 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2011): [T]he Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the notes in question are securities. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 define…
Continue Reading

Statutes of Limitations Are Strictly Construed Not to Bar Government

From United States v. Rebelo, 394 Fed. Appx. 850 (3d Cir. 2010): "[S]tatutes of limitation sought to be applied to bar rights of the Government, must receive a strict construction in favor of the Government." Badaracco v. Comm'r, 464 U.S. 386, 391, 104 S. Ct. 756, 78 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1984) (quotation omitted); accord SEC v. Mohn, 465 F.3 ...
From United States v. Rebelo, 394 Fed. Appx. 850 (3d Cir. 2010): “[S]tatutes of limitation sought to be applied to bar rights of the Government, must receive a strict construction in favor of the Government.” Badaracco v. Comm’r, 464 U.S.…
Continue Reading

Assignee Standing — Constitutional Standing

From Perkumpulan Inv. Crisis Center v. Regal Fin. Bancorp, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16132 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2011): Plaintiff commenced this case after the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on the law of assignee standing, Sprint Communications Company v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008). The Supreme Court fundamentally alte ...
From Perkumpulan Inv. Crisis Center v. Regal Fin. Bancorp, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16132 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2011): Plaintiff commenced this case after the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on the law of assignee standing, Sprint Communications Company…
Continue Reading

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
Previous356357358359360361362Next

Recent Posts

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

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