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

Judicial Notice of Court Records and Factual Information Posted on Governmental Websites — Standards for Review of Pro Se Pleadings

From Chisolm v. McElvogue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40377 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2011): Plaintiff, Donsurvi Chisolm (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in Berkeley County's Hill Finklea Detention Center (HFDC) in Moncks Corner, South Carolina, files this action in ...
From Chisolm v. McElvogue, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40377 (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2011): Plaintiff, Donsurvi Chisolm (Plaintiff), proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee in Berkeley County’s Hill Finklea Detention Center…
Continue Reading

Grable Does Not Overturn “Well-Pleaded Complaint” Doctrine for Determining Federal Jurisdiction, Which Must Arise Out of Claims Stated — Declaratory Judgment Claim Anticipating Defense Insufficient

From California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6756 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2011): [I]s the expectation of a federal defense, without more, sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim? *** CALSTAR provides air-ambulance rescue services to employees injured in ...
From California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6756 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2011): [I]s the expectation of a federal defense, without more, sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim? ***…
Continue Reading

No Right to Sidebars during Presentation of Testimony at Trial

From U.S. v. Aleynikov, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011): Sidebars Aleynikov contends that the Court's denial of his three requests for sidebars prejudiced the defense because it made it appear to the jury that Aleynikov was acting improperly in requesting a sidebar. Aleynikov has not shown that he ...
From U.S. v. Aleynikov, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33345 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2011): Sidebars Aleynikov contends that the Court’s denial of his three requests for sidebars prejudiced the defense because it made it appear to the jury that Aleynikov was…
Continue Reading

No “Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion” for § 1292 Purposes Where 14 District Courts in Circuit Have Addressed the Issue

From In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig., 741 F. Supp. 2d 844 (W.D. Tenn. 2010): In deciding whether to grant an interlocutory appeal [under 28 U.S.C. § 1292], the Court considers three factors: (1) whether the order involves a "controlling question of law"; (2) whether there is "substantial ground for difference of opinion" a ...
From In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig., 741 F. Supp. 2d 844 (W.D. Tenn. 2010): In deciding whether to grant an interlocutory appeal [under 28 U.S.C. § 1292], the Court considers three factors: (1) whether the order involves a…
Continue Reading

The Importance of Rule 403 in Evaluating Expert Testimony — Good Quote

From Brown v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33216 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 28, 2011): [I]f an expert's testimony survives the threshold scrutiny under Rule 702, it is subject to further review under Rule 403. See Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595; Brock v. Caterpillar, Inc., 94 F.3d 220, 226 (6th Cir. 1996). "[E]xpert evidence can ...
From Brown v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33216 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 28, 2011): [I]f an expert’s testimony survives the threshold scrutiny under Rule 702, it is subject to further review under Rule 403. See Daubert, 509…
Continue Reading

Samples of Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories — Party May Not Refuse to Answer Interrogatories, Then Claim the Interrogatories Are Cumulative of Later Deposition — Examples of Meritorious Cumulativeness Objections

From SEC v. Berry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39907 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011): [Sample Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories.] The SEC correctly points out that none of the authority cited by Berry supports her claim that the interrogatories are, "by [their] nature," overbroad and unduly burdensome. Indeed, the cases cited by ...
From SEC v. Berry, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39907 (N.D. Cal. April 1, 2011): [Sample Overly Broad and Burdensome Interrogatories.] The SEC correctly points out that none of the authority cited by Berry supports her claim that the interrogatories are,…
Continue Reading

Mandatory Abstention from Federal “Related to” Bankruptcy Jurisdiction — What Constitutes “Timely Adjudicated” within 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2)

From Parmalat Capital Finance Limited v. Bank of Am. Corp., 632 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2011): The questions presented are (1) whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); and (2) whether the district court properly declined to abstain from exercising that jurisdiction, p ...
From Parmalat Capital Finance Limited v. Bank of Am. Corp., 632 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2011): The questions presented are (1) whether the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b); and (2)…
Continue Reading

When Sanctions Rule Provides “Substantially Justified” Defense, District Court Must Rule Whether Conduct was Substantially Justified — Deposition Misconduct and Untimely, Revised, Post-Deposition Expert Report

From DeVille v. Givaudan Frangrances Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6245 (3d Cir. Mar. 25, 2011): Two discovery events are relevant to this appeal. The first occurred during the deposition of an expert witness named Michael Soudry. Elliott produced Soudry to testify about alleged statistical evidence [*5] of age discrimination at Givaudan ...
From DeVille v. Givaudan Frangrances Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6245 (3d Cir. Mar. 25, 2011): Two discovery events are relevant to this appeal. The first occurred during the deposition of an expert witness named Michael Soudry. Elliott produced Soudry…
Continue Reading

Counsel Not Permitted to Make Independent Claim of Work Product Where Client Has Effected Waiver of Privilege and Work Product — Client’s Assertion of Advice of Counsel Defense Prevails

From SEC v. McNaul, 271 F.R.D. 661 (D. Kan. 2010): In January 2009, the Receiver issued and served a subpoena on Baker & McKenzie seeking documents related to the firm's former representation of several defendants in this action. *** Baker & McKenzie [maintains] that while the Receiver is the successor-in-interest to the corporat ...
From SEC v. McNaul, 271 F.R.D. 661 (D. Kan. 2010): In January 2009, the Receiver issued and served a subpoena on Baker & McKenzie seeking documents related to the firm’s former representation of several defendants in this action. *** Baker…
Continue Reading

Pendent Venue — Discretionary — Two Approaches

From Vivant Pharma., LLC v. Clinical Formula, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37343 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2011): Vivant's Amended Complaint alleges various causes of action for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, federal and common law unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, br ...
From Vivant Pharma., LLC v. Clinical Formula, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37343 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2011): Vivant’s Amended Complaint alleges various causes of action for patent infringement, federal and common law trademark infringement, federal and common law unfair…
Continue Reading
Previous358359360361362363364Next

Recent Posts

§ 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

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

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