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

Breadth of Judicial Immunity from § 1983 Actions

From Green v. Mallia, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22775 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2010): The Supreme Court "has consistently adhered to the rule that judges defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in their judicial capacities." [Footnote 7. Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27, 101 S. Ct ...
From Green v. Mallia, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22775 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2010): The Supreme Court “has consistently adhered to the rule that judges defending against § 1983 actions enjoy absolute immunity from damages liability for acts performed in…
Continue Reading

Settlement Pending Appeal Moots All Claims Unless Settling Party (Here, Class Representative) Retains a Personal Stake in the Case — Good Quote about Mootness

From Sanford v. Memberworks, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22601 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2010): "Mootness [is] the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness)." U.S. Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, ...
From Sanford v. Memberworks, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22601 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2010): “Mootness [is] the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing)…
Continue Reading

Alleged Legal Malpractice Is Not a Sufficient Ground for Reconsideration under Rule 60(b)

From Aponte v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Corrections, 377 Fed. Appx. 99 (2d Cir. 2010): Rule 60(b)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a motion for relief from a judgment or order may be granted based on "newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b ...
From Aponte v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Corrections, 377 Fed. Appx. 99 (2d Cir. 2010): Rule 60(b)(2) provides, in relevant part, that a motion for relief from a judgment or order may be granted based on “newly discovered evidence…
Continue Reading

30(b)(6) Deposition Not Limited to Topics in Notice (Caselaw Split) — Professional Videographer Unnecessary Where Certified Stenographer Is Present, If Video Complies with Rule 30(b)(5)

From Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Billard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114961 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 28, 2010): [Scope of 30(b)(6) Deposition] The deposition of Nancy Yasso was taken in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), pursuant to a first amended notice served on AGLIC. In his notice, Billard stated that he w ...
From Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Billard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114961 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 28, 2010): [Scope of 30(b)(6) Deposition] The deposition of Nancy Yasso was taken in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — § 1927 Standards — Third Circuit

From In re Beers, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22475 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2010): Beers contends that the District Court erred in concluding that the legal standard for 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions includes a required element of bad faith. We find no such error. Both the District Court and the Bankruptcy Court thoroughly reviewed the applicable law ...
From In re Beers, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 22475 (3d Cir. Oct. 29, 2010): Beers contends that the District Court erred in concluding that the legal standard for 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions includes a required element of bad faith.…
Continue Reading

Even After Hall Street, Court May Decline to Enforce Arbitration Award on Grounds of Public Policy

From Shaw Constructors, Inc. v. HPD, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114598 (E.D. La. Oct. 25, 2010): In 2008, the Supreme Court decided Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc., in which it held that the statutory grounds contained in the FAA are the exclusive means by which an arbitral award may be vacated. 552 U.S. at 584. The Court d ...
From Shaw Constructors, Inc. v. HPD, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114598 (E.D. La. Oct. 25, 2010): In 2008, the Supreme Court decided Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc., in which it held that the statutory grounds contained in the…
Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s PSLRA Notice of Pendency of Class Action — Which Must Identify “Claims Asserted” — Must List All Federal Securities, but Not All State Law, Claims

From Poptech, LP v. Stewardship Inv. Advisors, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114711 (D. Conn. Oct. 28, 2010): Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Poptech, LP's ("Poptech's") Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Its Selection of Lead Counsel . . . . In the motion, Poptech seeks to be appointed as co-Lead Plainti ...
From Poptech, LP v. Stewardship Inv. Advisors, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114711 (D. Conn. Oct. 28, 2010): Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Poptech, LP’s (“Poptech’s”) Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Its Selection of…
Continue Reading

What Are Discrete Subparts of Interrogatories? — Boilerplate Objections — Promise to Produce at Unspecified Time Inadequate — Res Judicata No Defense to Discovery — Subpoena May Not be Used to Compel Party to Produce Objected-to Documents

From Mezu v. Morgan St. Univ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113817 (D. Md. Oct. 22, 2010): Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) provides that "a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts." *** Probably the best test of whether subsequent questions, within a ...
From Mezu v. Morgan St. Univ., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113817 (D. Md. Oct. 22, 2010): Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) provides that “a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete…
Continue Reading

Joint Defense (Common Interest) Agreement Need Not be in Writing and Failed Attempt to Draft Writing Does Not Defeat Assertion of the Privilege

From Marianist Province of U.S., Inc. v. Century Indem. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110888 (D. Colo. Oct. 5, 2010): In Colorado, the joint defense (or common interest) doctrine is an exception to the general rule that the attorney-client privilege is waived when privileged information is disclosed to third parties. Black v. Southwester ...
From Marianist Province of U.S., Inc. v. Century Indem. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110888 (D. Colo. Oct. 5, 2010): In Colorado, the joint defense (or common interest) doctrine is an exception to the general rule that the attorney-client privilege…
Continue Reading

No Cause of Action for Sanctions under New York State Law

From Calabro & Assocs. v. Katz, 26 Misc. 3d 137A, 907 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1st Dept. 2010): The counterclaim for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been dismissed, since no independent cause of action for such sanctions exists (see Siegel, NY Practice § 414A [4th ed]; see also 22 NYCRR 130-1.1[d]). In any event, construed as a motion ...
From Calabro & Assocs. v. Katz, 26 Misc. 3d 137A, 907 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1st Dept. 2010): The counterclaim for sanctions under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 should have been dismissed, since no independent cause of action for such sanctions exists (see Siegel,…
Continue Reading
Previous369370371372373374375Next

Recent Posts

(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

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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