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

At-Issue Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege under Federal and New York Law

From Leviton Mfg. Co. v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128849 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2010): Under Second Circuit law, waiver of attorney-client privilege may occur, when a client testifies concerning portions of the attorney-client communication, . . . when a client places the attorney-client relationship ...
From Leviton Mfg. Co. v Greenberg Traurig LLP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128849 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2010): Under Second Circuit law, waiver of attorney-client privilege may occur, when a client testifies concerning portions of the attorney-client communication, . . .…
Continue Reading

In a Removed Diversity Case, May a District Court Sever a Non-Diverse Defendant Absent a Finding of Fraudulent Joiner or Misjoinder? Caselaw Split

From Cooke-Bates v. Bayer Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121255 (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010) (on motion for certification under § 1292(b)): As a general matter, Rule 21 permits the Court to sever a party from a case in order to achieve complete diversity and establish proper jurisdiction of a civil action. Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Lar ...
From Cooke-Bates v. Bayer Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121255 (E.D. Va. Nov. 15, 2010) (on motion for certification under § 1292(b)): As a general matter, Rule 21 permits the Court to sever a party from a case in order…
Continue Reading

Party Collaboration with Expert OK — Expert Opinion Avoiding State of Mind — Contact with Ex-Employees of Party — Conduct Outside Limitations Period May Be Relevant — Admissions of Corporate Employees & Res Gestae

From Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F.Supp.2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): [T]here is no support for the contention that Dr. Waterman's study is flawed because of his collaboration with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assisted Dr. Waterman in a variety of ways, including obtaining the sample of files, categorizing the files in the sample, an ...
From Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F.Supp.2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): [T]here is no support for the contention that Dr. Waterman’s study is flawed because of his collaboration with Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs assisted Dr. Waterman in a variety of…
Continue Reading

Realleging Dismissed Claim without Curing Deficiency as Violating Improper-Purpose Clause of Rule 11

From Corrigan v. Dale, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22149 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010): The district court properly granted Hille's and Scudder's motion for Rule 11 sanctions because Corrigan's filing of successive complaints based on previously-rejected propositions of law constituted harassment. See Buster v. Greisen, 104 F.3d 1186, 1189-90 ...
From Corrigan v. Dale, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22149 (9th Cir. Oct. 19, 2010): The district court properly granted Hille’s and Scudder’s motion for Rule 11 sanctions because Corrigan’s filing of successive complaints based on previously-rejected propositions of law constituted…
Continue Reading

Shotgun Complaint Fails to Satisfy Rule 8(a)(2) (Good Quote) — Repeated Failure to Cure Complaint = Dismissal with Prejudice — Limits on Liberal Construction of Pro Se Pleading — Carvel Fortune Melted Away

From Carvel v. Godley, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24763 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2010): Pamela Carvel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of her second amended complaint with prejudice and its order taxing costs. Carvel advances numerous claims against Betty Godley for depriving Carvel and her deceased aunt, Agnes Carv ...
From Carvel v. Godley, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24763 (11th Cir. Dec. 2, 2010): Pamela Carvel, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her second amended complaint with prejudice and its order taxing costs. Carvel advances numerous claims…
Continue Reading

Alien Tort Claims Act Applies Only to Conduct Committed Abroad or with an “International Savor” — Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act Preempts ATCA Claim Based on Human

Trafficking in the U.S. From Velez v. Sanchez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126586 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010): Linda Velez ("Velez") claims that she was trafficked from Ecuador and forced to work in the home of Betsy Sanchez ("Betsy"). That single assertion spawned *** claims under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), 28 U.S.C. § 1350, [and other s ...
Trafficking in the U.S. From Velez v. Sanchez, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126586 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2010): Linda Velez (“Velez”) claims that she was trafficked from Ecuador and forced to work in the home of Betsy Sanchez (“Betsy”). That single…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege as Passing with Sale of Business, Even If Asset Sale

From Gilday v. Kenra, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106310 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 4, 2010): Kenra, Ltd. *** purchased substantially all of Kenra, LLC's assets and continued Kenra, LLC's operations "at the exact same location using the same computer systems, file cabinets, documents and other assets . . . . Kenra hired all of the Kenra, LLC employe ...
From Gilday v. Kenra, Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106310 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 4, 2010): Kenra, Ltd. *** purchased substantially all of Kenra, LLC’s assets and continued Kenra, LLC’s operations “at the exact same location using the same computer systems,…
Continue Reading

Mistakenly Filing Documents under Seal, Rather than In Camera, for Privilege Review Is Not “Inadvertent” and Effects Waiver as to Those Documents but Not Subject Matter Waiver — Rule 502(b) vs. 502(a)

From First Am. CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127454 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2010): At the outset, before discussing CoreLogic's inadvertent disclosure argument, the Court briefly notes that if CoreLogic did not inadvertently disclose the documents, then the privilege was waived to those documents. In the present cas ...
From First Am. CoreLogic, Inc. v. Fiserv, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127454 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 2, 2010): At the outset, before discussing CoreLogic’s inadvertent disclosure argument, the Court briefly notes that if CoreLogic did not inadvertently disclose the documents,…
Continue Reading

Financial Condition of Parent Corporation Inadmissible on Issue of Punitive Damages Owed by Subsidiary

From St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP v. St. Croix Alumina, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122611 (D.V.I. Nov. 18, 2010): *** "It is a general principle of corporate law deeply ingrained in our economic and legal systems that a parent corporation ... is not liable for the acts of its subsidiaries." U.S. v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 6 ...
From St. Croix Renaissance Group, LLLP v. St. Croix Alumina, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122611 (D.V.I. Nov. 18, 2010): *** “It is a general principle of corporate law deeply ingrained in our economic and legal systems that a parent…
Continue Reading

No Matter How Limited Its Jurisdiction, Court Possesses the Inherent Power to Strike a Filing from Its Docket

From Ready Transportation, Inc. v. Available Shippers, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24431 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2010): Ready sued AAR and others***. All defendants except AAR were dismissed from the case in its early stages. Ready and AAR then settled their dispute under the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. They stipulated to dism ...
From Ready Transportation, Inc. v. Available Shippers, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24431 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2010): Ready sued AAR and others***. All defendants except AAR were dismissed from the case in its early stages. Ready and AAR then…
Continue Reading
Previous366367368369370371372Next

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