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

Non-Party Sanctioned for Unauthorized Practice of Law in Drafting Complaint for Pro Se Litigant for an Improper Purpose

From Barry v. Heimer, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18858 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2010): Rae Heimer, a non-party to the underlying action, appeals pro se from the district court's order sanctioning her under its inherent power to curb abusive litigation practices after dismissing the complaint she prepared for failure to state a claim. *** The d ...
From Barry v. Heimer, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18858 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2010): Rae Heimer, a non-party to the underlying action, appeals pro se from the district court’s order sanctioning her under its inherent power to curb abusive litigation…
Continue Reading

When a Claim Can be Supported by Alternate and Independent State or Federal Law Theories, No Federal Jurisdiction Attaches

From Ballesteros v. Charter College, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109855 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010): The Ninth Circuit has explained that "[w]hen a claim can be supported by alternative and independent theories-one of which is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory-federal question jurisdiction does not attach because federal ...
From Ballesteros v. Charter College, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109855 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010): The Ninth Circuit has explained that “[w]hen a claim can be supported by alternative and independent theories-one of which is a state law theory and…
Continue Reading

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
Previous369370371372373374375Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

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