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

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

Rule 59(e) Motion to Amend Judgment — Standards

Two cases: From Duckett v. United States, (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3754 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2011): The grounds for granting relief from a judgment under Rule 59(e) " include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest i ...
Two cases: From Duckett v. United States, (2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3754 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 14, 2011): The grounds for granting relief from a judgment under Rule 59(e) ” include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new…
Continue Reading
Previous359360361362363364365Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Burden Is On Noncompliant Party to Prove Harmlessness — Court Need Not Hold Hearing If Noncompliant Party Fails to Argue Harmlessness, Even When Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

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