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

Third Circuit Reserves Decision as to Whether Rule 11 Sanctions Imposed after Final Judgment Must Be Vacated under Its Supervisory Rule

From Pepper Hamilton, LLP v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyd's, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17195 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2010): [Footnote 16.] Pepper Hamilton also argues that, because the District Court imposed sanctions after it had already issued a final judgment, the sanctions must be reversed in light of the supervisory rule we ...
From Pepper Hamilton, LLP v. Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyd’s, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17195 (3d Cir. Aug. 18, 2010): [Footnote 16.] Pepper Hamilton also argues that, because the District Court imposed sanctions after it had already issued…
Continue Reading

Credit Default Swap on Home Mortgage Purchased by Mortgagee Does Not Inure to the Benefit of Mortgagor or Relieve Mortgagor’s Debt

From Dumont v. HSBC Mortgage Corp., USA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77805 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2010): In their fourth claim for relief, Plaintiffs' allege that HSBC or another heretofore unknown party may have purchased or collected proceeds available under one or more credit-default swaps of which Plaintiffs' mortgage might have been a part, a ...
From Dumont v. HSBC Mortgage Corp., USA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77805 (D. Ariz. July 30, 2010): In their fourth claim for relief, Plaintiffs’ allege that HSBC or another heretofore unknown party may have purchased or collected proceeds available under…
Continue Reading

Rule 37, Default/Dismissal & Contempt Sanctions in the Second Circuit — Inherent Power Defers to Applicable Rule — No Harm, No Foul Rejected

From So. New Eng. Tel. Co. v . Global Naps Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17747 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2010) (“Window Washer”evidence-deletion program used, among other things): We have indicated that "[s]everal factors may be useful in evaluating a district court's exercise of discretion" to impose sanctions pursuant to this rule [Fed. R. Ci ...
From So. New Eng. Tel. Co. v . Global Naps Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 17747 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2010) (“Window Washer”evidence-deletion program used, among other things): We have indicated that “[s]everal factors may be useful in evaluating a…
Continue Reading

Tenth Circuit Requires Subjective Bad Faith for Inherent Power Sanctions but Applies Objective Test to Determine Vexatiousness under § 1927

From Kornfeld v.Kornfeld, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18329 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2010): The district court's order summarizes some errant conduct on the part of defendants. However, it lacks a finding of "subjective wrongdoing . . . required to support a fee award" under the federal courts' inherent power. *** The cases relied upon by the dis ...
From Kornfeld v.Kornfeld, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18329 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2010): The district court’s order summarizes some errant conduct on the part of defendants. However, it lacks a finding of “subjective wrongdoing . . . required to support…
Continue Reading

Standards for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Setting Aside a Verdict as Against the Weight of the Evidence in New York State Courts

From Christ v. Law Offices of Wm. F. Levine & Michael B. Grossman, 72 A.D.3d 721, 898 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2d Dep’t 2010): To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a defendant has the burden of establishing that there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant... ...
From Christ v. Law Offices of Wm. F. Levine & Michael B. Grossman, 72 A.D.3d 721, 898 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2d Dep’t 2010): To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4404(a), a defendant has the burden…
Continue Reading

Factors Rendering a Finding Clearly Erroneous — Application of Equitable Defenses / Equitable Doctrines Reviewed under Abuse of Discretion Standard

From Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18446 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2010): To the extent that Appellants challenge the district court's factual findings, such findings are reviewed for clear error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). A district court's finding of fact is clearly erroneous ...
From Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18446 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2010): To the extent that Appellants challenge the district court’s factual findings, such findings are reviewed for clear…
Continue Reading

The Law of the Case Doctrine

From Wike v. Vertrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90366 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2010): "'As most commonly defined, [the doctrine of the law of the case] posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.'" Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operati ...
From Wike v. Vertrue, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90366 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2010): “‘As most commonly defined, [the doctrine of the law of the case] posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Intent Critical — Mere Delay in Production Remedied by Continuance — Relevance of Lost Files Assessed by Comparison to Those Produced — No Prejudice Where Lost Documents Not Sought from Third Parties

From Gallagher v. City of St. Paul, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18245 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2010): Appellants challenge both denials of sanctions, arguing that the City abused the discovery process by failing to place a litigation hold on the destruction of emails and TISH reports. They request an inference that "the evidence destroyed was unfav ...
From Gallagher v. City of St. Paul, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 18245 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2010): Appellants challenge both denials of sanctions, arguing that the City abused the discovery process by failing to place a litigation hold on the…
Continue Reading

Rule 802(d)(2) Admissions in Employment Actions — Employee-Speaker Must Have Been Involved in the Decision-Making Process

From Cypert v. Indep. School Dist. No. 1-050, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90057 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 30, 2010): "[A]n employee's statements are not attributable to his employer as a party-opponent admission in an employment dispute unless the employee was 'involved in the decisionmaking process affecting the employment action' at issue." Johns ...
From Cypert v. Indep. School Dist. No. 1-050, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90057 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 30, 2010): “[A]n employee’s statements are not attributable to his employer as a party-opponent admission in an employment dispute unless the employee was ‘involved…
Continue Reading

Fraudulent Joinder Standard Is More Deferential to Plaintiff than 12(b)(6) Standard — “Any Reasonable Possibility” vs. “Any Possibility”

From Sanders v. DJO, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89652 (D.N.M. July 7, 2010): Defendants claiming that fraudulent joinder has occurred bear the burden of establishing that fact. This burden is a heavy one. See, e.g., Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 764 (7th Cir. 2009); Montano v. Allstate Indemnity, 2 ...
From Sanders v. DJO, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89652 (D.N.M. July 7, 2010): Defendants claiming that fraudulent joinder has occurred bear the burden of establishing that fact. This burden is a heavy one. See, e.g., Schur v. L.A. Weight…
Continue Reading
Previous371372373374375376377Next

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