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

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

RICO — Fraud Claim That Is Mere Restatement of Contract Claim Inadequate to State Mail or Wire Fraud Predicate — When Fraud Claim Is Not Mere Restatement of Contract Claim under New York Law

From Sampson v. Medisys Health Network Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2011): To state a RICO claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964(c), a plaintiff must, inter alia, allege a defendant participated or conspired to participate in a "pattern of racketeering activity." 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b), (c) and (d). P ...
From Sampson v. Medisys Health Network Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2011): To state a RICO claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 and 1964(c), a plaintiff must, inter alia, allege a defendant participated or conspired…
Continue Reading

Submission of Privileged or Work Product Materials to Court for In Camera Review Does Not Waive Applicable Protection

From Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 69, 75 (D.D.C. 2003): [T]he SEC maintains that the [defendant's] uninvited submission of the transcripts for the district court's in camera review was improper, and the resulting disclosure thus constituted waiver of the privilege. *** [W]e know of no case, and the SEC points to none, where the submiss ...
From Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 69, 75 (D.D.C. 2003): [T]he SEC maintains that the [defendant’s] uninvited submission of the transcripts for the district court’s in camera review was improper, and the resulting disclosure thus constituted waiver of the privilege.…
Continue Reading

No Equitable Tolling of 30-Day or One-Year Limits on Removal — Circuit Split

From Staggs v. Union Pacific R.R., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13022 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 28, 2011): Section 1446 of Title 28 establishes the procedure for removal from state court. Relevant to the instant case is § 1446(b), which provides: The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within thirty ...
From Staggs v. Union Pacific R.R., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13022 (E.D. Ark. Jan. 28, 2011): Section 1446 of Title 28 establishes the procedure for removal from state court. Relevant to the instant case is § 1446(b), which provides: The…
Continue Reading

Motion to Disqualify Judge Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144 — Procedure — Alleged Bias Against Counsel Generally Insufficient to Warrant Recusal

From Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gov’rs, 733 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2010): Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Elham Sataki's ... Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. This is, in effect, Plaintiff's second attempt to disqualify the Court based on allegations that certain of the Court's rulings, combine ...
From Sataki v. Broad. Bd. of Gov’rs, 733 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2010): Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Elham Sataki’s … Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. This is, in effect, Plaintiff’s…
Continue Reading

Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence

From Commonwealth v. Amaral, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 671 (2011): The actions of the defendant himself served to authenticate the e-mails. One e-mail indicated that Jeremy would be at a certain place at a certain time and the defendant appeared at that place and time. In other e-mails, Jeremy provided his telephone number and photograph. ...
From Commonwealth v. Amaral, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 671 (2011): The actions of the defendant himself served to authenticate the e-mails. One e-mail indicated that Jeremy would be at a certain place at a certain time and the defendant appeared…
Continue Reading

Does Fraudulent Joinder Doctrine Apply to Plaintiffs as Well as Defendants? — Case Law Split

From Taco Bell Corp. v. Dairy Farmers of Am., 727 F. Supp. 2d 604 (W.D. Ky. 2010): The parties debate at great length whether the fraudulent joinder doctrine can ever apply to the joinder of plaintiffs. Certainly, the doctrine is generally applied to joinder of defendants. The Sixth Circuit has never affirmatively addressed thi ...
From Taco Bell Corp. v. Dairy Farmers of Am., 727 F. Supp. 2d 604 (W.D. Ky. 2010): The parties debate at great length whether the fraudulent joinder doctrine can ever apply to the joinder of plaintiffs. Certainly, the doctrine is…
Continue Reading
Previous357358359360361362363Next

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