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

Arbitration Compelled against Non-Parties — Equitable Estoppel — Intertwining — Non-Parties Who Move to Compel Arbitration Ordered to Submit to It

From NS Holdings LLC v. Am. Int’l Group, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125077 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2010): Having found the arbitration provision to be enforceable, the Court must now address the provision's applicability to Defendants AIG and Chartis. The policy at issue in this case was entered into between Plaintiffs and Defendant AISLIC. D ...
From NS Holdings LLC v. Am. Int’l Group, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125077 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2010): Having found the arbitration provision to be enforceable, the Court must now address the provision’s applicability to Defendants AIG and Chartis. The…
Continue Reading

New Expert and Summary Judgment Rules Go into Effect December 1, 2010

On Wednesday, December 1, amended federal expert witness and summary judgment rules go into effect. The principal changes are to Rule 26: 1. Communications between counsel and retained experts are generally protected from disclosure or discovery. 2. Counsel must prepare disclosures summarizing the facts and opinions of experts ...
On Wednesday, December 1, amended federal expert witness and summary judgment rules go into effect. The principal changes are to Rule 26: 1. Communications between counsel and retained experts are generally protected from disclosure or discovery. 2. Counsel must prepare…
Continue Reading

Motions for Reconsideration — Standards (Seventh Circuit Articulation)

From Terry v. Woller, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122181 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2010): Motions to reconsider should only be presented when law or facts change significantly after an issue has been presented to the court, when the court has "patently misunderstood a party", when the court has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presente ...
From Terry v. Woller, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122181 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 18, 2010): Motions to reconsider should only be presented when law or facts change significantly after an issue has been presented to the court, when the court has…
Continue Reading

Filing Suit in a Proper but Inconvenient Forum Not Sanctionable Absent Improper Purpose — Location of Plaintiff’s Counsel as a Legitimate Purpose for Original Choice of Venue

From HR US LLC v. Mizco Int’l, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103123 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010) (defense seeking attorney's fees arguing that the case is "exceptional" within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 but relying on sanctions precedents): Plaintiff did not engage in litigation misconduct by filing in a proper, but ultimately inconven ...
From HR US LLC v. Mizco Int’l, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103123 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010) (defense seeking attorney’s fees arguing that the case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 but relying on sanctions precedents):…
Continue Reading

Deposition of Adverse Counsel — Second Circuit “Flexible Approach” / Standards

From In re Application of Chevron Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117679 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2010): II. Deposition of Adverse Counsel "Courts have been . . . concerned about the burdens imposed on the adversary process when lawyers themselves have been the subject of discovery requests, and have resisted the idea that lawye ...
From In re Application of Chevron Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117679 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 10, 2010): II. Deposition of Adverse Counsel “Courts have been . . . concerned about the burdens imposed on the adversary process when lawyers themselves have…
Continue Reading

Amended Complaint Resets Rule 11 Clock — Judge’s Warning to Heed Rule 11 Does Not Trump Safe Harbor — Nor Does Ambiguous Judicial Request to Delay 2nd Sanctions Motion — No Sanctions for “Merely Frustrating Conduct” (Good Quote)

From Lawrence v. Richman Group of CT LLC, 620 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2010): In an order dated March 4, 2005, the district court dismissed Lawrence's first amended complaint in this case, finding that it failed to plead a contract that was legal and enforceable. Nevertheless, based on counsel's representation that this defect could be cured b ...
From Lawrence v. Richman Group of CT LLC, 620 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2010): In an order dated March 4, 2005, the district court dismissed Lawrence’s first amended complaint in this case, finding that it failed to plead a contract…
Continue Reading

The Attorney-Client Privilege in Congressional Investigations

Download associated file: Attorney Client Privilege in Congressional Investigations.pdf  The American College of Trial Lawyers has just published an excellent white paper on the Attorney-Client Privilege in Congressional Investigations. It can be found at the link above ...
Download associated file: Attorney Client Privilege in Congressional Investigations.pdf  The American College of Trial Lawyers has just published an excellent white paper on the Attorney-Client Privilege in Congressional Investigations. It can be found at the link above. This issue…
Continue Reading

Due Process Not Violated by Application of Statute in First Impression Circumstances If Prior Decisions Gave Reasonable Warning of How Law Would be Applied

From Gollehon v. Mahoney, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23944 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010): As an initial matter, we address Gollehon's contention that he lacked fair notice because "no decision of the Montana Supreme Court (up until [his] case) even considered whether an offender convicted of deliberate homicide by accountability could be sentenced t ...
From Gollehon v. Mahoney, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23944 (9th Cir. Nov. 22, 2010): As an initial matter, we address Gollehon’s contention that he lacked fair notice because “no decision of the Montana Supreme Court (up until [his] case) even…
Continue Reading

Issuer Is “Customer” of Underwriter for Purposes of Compelling FINRA Arbitration — Under FAA, Court Refusing to Enjoin Arbitration May Not Compel It in Another District

From JPMorgan Secs. Inc. v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 70 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): JP Morgan and Bear Stearns ask this Court to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining its pending FINRA arbitration with Citizens. This Court's power to enjoin that arbitration derives from the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA"). Section 2 of th ...
From JPMorgan Secs. Inc. v. La. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 712 F. Supp. 2d 70 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): JP Morgan and Bear Stearns ask this Court to grant a preliminary injunction enjoining its pending FINRA arbitration with Citizens. This Court’s power…
Continue Reading

Daubert — Strict Interpretation — Good Quotes — Criminal vs. Civil Daubert

From United States v. Hebshie, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120746 (D. Mass. Nov. 15, 2010): Daubert’s extra vigilance is essential for two reasons: First, while opinion testimony is generally excluded, expert witnesses are permitted to opine on the basis of evidence not given to the jury. See Fed. R. Evid. 703. Second, as I have prev ...
From United States v. Hebshie, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120746 (D. Mass. Nov. 15, 2010): Daubert’s extra vigilance is essential for two reasons: First, while opinion testimony is generally excluded, expert witnesses are permitted to opine on the basis of…
Continue Reading
Previous363364365366367368369Next

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