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

Where One of Two Papers Contained a Falsehood but Only One Was Filed in Court and It Was Unclear Which One Was False, Sanctions Denied

From Patel v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21569 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2010): Although the district court determined that the Clinical Director had provided false information in either the declaration or the referral request, it could not determine which document contained the false information. Thus, the district court did not order ...
From Patel v. United States, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21569 (5th Cir. Oct. 12, 2010): Although the district court determined that the Clinical Director had provided false information in either the declaration or the referral request, it could not determine…
Continue Reading

May a Pro Se Litigant File a Motion to Recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 144, Which Requires a Certificate of Counsel of Record? Caselaw Split

From Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109068 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2010): Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Klayman's ("Klayman") *** Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. This represents Klayman's second attempt to disqualify this Court in this case based on the allegation that ...
From Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109068 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2010): Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Klayman’s (“Klayman”) *** Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. This represents Klayman’s…
Continue Reading

Request for 60 Days to Respond to TRO = Implied Consent to Extend TRO for the Full Period Requested and Until Court Rules

From City of N.Y. v. Venkataram, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109776 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2010): On September 21, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Venkataram (or anyone acting on his behalf, in concert with him, or in concert with anyone acting on his behalf) from ...
From City of N.Y. v. Venkataram, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109776 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2010): On September 21, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Venkataram (or anyone…
Continue Reading

Disqualification in Federal Court Is Determined under Federal Standard, Not State Ethical Rules

From Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107057 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 5, 2010): In recent years, "attorney mobility and firm mergers have increased exponentially." Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776, 802 (Ct. App. 2010). One consequence of this phenomenon is that a lawyer is ...
From Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107057 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 5, 2010): In recent years, “attorney mobility and firm mergers have increased exponentially.” Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th…
Continue Reading

Non-Lawyer’s Draft Report Protected as Work Product but Impressions, Opinions or Conclusions of Non-Lawyers ≠ Core Work Product

From Nelsen v. Geren, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89039 (D. Or. Aug. 27, 2010): Carrubba is not an attorney. Nevertheless, Rule 26(b)(3) protects from discovery documents that are prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or "its representative," which includes individuals other than attorneys. For example, in Fuller v. Che ...
From Nelsen v. Geren, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89039 (D. Or. Aug. 27, 2010): Carrubba is not an attorney. Nevertheless, Rule 26(b)(3) protects from discovery documents that are prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or “its representative,” which…
Continue Reading

Communications Decency Act Immunizes ISP / Host from Liability under State Law for Content of Postings under unless Its System Is Designed to Facilitate Unlawful Acts

From Johnson v. Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010): A. Communications Decency Act The Johnsons first argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their claims after concluding InMotion is immune under the CDA. The Johnsons contend that 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) and (e)(3) merely p ...
From Johnson v. Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010): A. Communications Decency Act The Johnsons first argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their claims after concluding InMotion is immune under the CDA. The Johnsons contend…
Continue Reading

Third-Party Consumer Emails Admissible under Residual Exception — Unfair Trade Practices Litigation

From State v. Sunrise Herbal Remedies, Inc., 296 Conn. 556, 2 A.3d (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2010): We also note that it is not clear whether the trial court would conclude that much of the purported hearsay, such as the contents of the consumer complaints, is inadmissible. Compare Federal Trade Commission v. Figgie International, Inc., 99 ...
From State v. Sunrise Herbal Remedies, Inc., 296 Conn. 556, 2 A.3d (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2010): We also note that it is not clear whether the trial court would conclude that much of the purported hearsay, such as the contents…
Continue Reading

Federal Court May Not Generally Sanction a Party with an Injunction against Filing State Court Litigation — Party May Be Held in Contempt for Violating Order Only If It Is Unambiguous

From Lipin v. Sawyer, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21009 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2010): Plaintiff Joan C. Lipin, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment dismissing her constitutional and statutory claims against defendants and holding her in civil contempt with an attendant $5,000 fine for failure to comply with an August 2008 filing injunction.** ...
From Lipin v. Sawyer, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21009 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2010): Plaintiff Joan C. Lipin, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment dismissing her constitutional and statutory claims against defendants and holding her in civil contempt with…
Continue Reading

Rule of Unanimity Does Not Apply to National Bank Removal under 12 U.S.C. § 632 — Any Defendant May Remove, Not Just the Bank — Caselaw Split

From CI Int’l Fuels, Ltda. V. Helm Bank, S.A., 707 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2010): On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiffs moved to remand this action to state court "on an issue of first impression in Florida and the Eleventh Circuit." (Mot. 1). According to the Plaintiffs, the removal is ineffective because Regions failed to comply with ...
From CI Int’l Fuels, Ltda. V. Helm Bank, S.A., 707 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2010): On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiffs moved to remand this action to state court “on an issue of first impression in Florida and…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Improper Final Argument

From In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105769 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010): The quoted passages from Mr. Douglas' summation demonstrated that he was arguing punitive damages and because of the Court's August 5, 2009 Opinion, he had ample notice that exemplary or punitive damages were not before the jury. Mr. Ross' argum ...
From In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105769 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010): The quoted passages from Mr. Douglas’ summation demonstrated that he was arguing punitive damages and because of the Court’s August 5, 2009 Opinion, he…
Continue Reading
Previous367368369370371372373Next

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