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

Sanctions under the PSLRA — Second Eleventh Circuit Decision in 2010

From Thompson v. Jacoby, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13371 (11th Cir. 2010): If the court finds a party or attorney violated any requirement of Rule 11(b), the court "shall" impose sanctions in accordance with Rule 11. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(c)(3). If a complaint substantially fails to comply with Rule 11(b), the presumptive sanction is attorn ...
From Thompson v. Jacoby, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13371 (11th Cir. 2010): If the court finds a party or attorney violated any requirement of Rule 11(b), the court “shall” impose sanctions in accordance with Rule 11. 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(c)(3).…
Continue Reading

Waiver by Failure to Alert Court of Appeals of Relevant Supreme Court Decision Issued after Briefing and Argument Have Ended

From Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4981 (U.S. June 21, 2010)(note: the substantive holding of this case is discussed in our post of June 23, 2010): In his brief to this Court, Jackson made the contention, not mentioned below, that the delegation provision itself is substantively unconscionable because the q ...
From Rent-A-Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4981 (U.S. June 21, 2010)(note: the substantive holding of this case is discussed in our post of June 23, 2010): In his brief to this Court, Jackson made the contention, not…
Continue Reading

Elements of Associational Standing — Associational Standing Exists to Assert Injunctive, But Not Damages, Claims (11th Circuit) — Application to ERISA

From Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738 (11th Cir. July 6, 2010): 3. Associational Standing The representative associations argue that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over their claims, even if the claims of the individual Appellants were completely preempted by ERISA. ...
From Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738 (11th Cir. July 6, 2010): 3. Associational Standing The representative associations argue that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over their claims, even if the claims of…
Continue Reading

Elements of Judicial Estoppel (Majority View) — Application to Statements of Counsel

From Ries v. Paige, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13780 (5th Cir. June 28, 2010): "Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that 'prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or some earlier proceeding.'" Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 545 F.3d 338, 347 (5th Ci ...
From Ries v. Paige, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13780 (5th Cir. June 28, 2010): “Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that ‘prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken…
Continue Reading

Categories of Preemption: Express vs. Conflict vs. Field — Passenger’s State Law Personal Injury Claim for Negligence Against Air Carrier Not Preempted by Federal Aviation Act

From Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13721 (3d Cir. July 6, 2010): Joseph Elassaad appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Independence Air, Inc., with respect to his negligence claim for injuries sustained when he fell while disembarking from an airplane at the Philadelphia International Airpo ...
From Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13721 (3d Cir. July 6, 2010): Joseph Elassaad appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Independence Air, Inc., with respect to his negligence claim for injuries sustained…
Continue Reading

Arbitration Award between Plaintiff and One of Two Defendants Properly Reduced to Judgment under Rule 54(b) Despite Existence of Unresolved Litigation against Second Defendant — 54(b) Factors

The City terminated its contractor (MCI) in MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13495 (4th Cir. July 1, 2010), and the contractor sued both the city and the engineering firm (Hazen and Sawyer). The contractor and the city elected to arbitrate their dispute rather than litigate it in the court action; the city won; and it success ...
The City terminated its contractor (MCI) in MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13495 (4th Cir. July 1, 2010), and the contractor sued both the city and the engineering firm (Hazen and Sawyer). The contractor…
Continue Reading

Attorneys’ Fees and Prejudgment Interest Awarded by C.D. Cal. in RICO Action (Default Judgment) — Voluntarily Halving Actual Fees “Eminently Reasonable”

From Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65767 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2010): RICO *** requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. See 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) ("Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United ...
From Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65767 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2010): RICO *** requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) (“Any person injured in his business or property by…
Continue Reading

Communications Between Investment Banker and Lawyer for Common Client Unprivileged, as Are Communications Between Lawyer and Client cc’ing Investment Banker

From Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61640 (D. Mass. June 22, 2010): This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion to compel documents from defendant, JP Morgan Chase & Co. The underlying lawsuit relates to the leveraged buyouts of a number of companies of which plaintiffs were shareholders (the ...
From Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61640 (D. Mass. June 22, 2010): This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents from defendant, JP Morgan Chase & Co. The underlying lawsuit…
Continue Reading

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule vs. Artful Pleading Doctrine: Is the Plaintiff Really the Master of Its Complaint?

From Romano v. Kazacos, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13220 (2d Cir. June 29, 2010), in which the issue was whether the complaint was subject to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act: A. Master of the Complaint Appellants initially contend that the District Court impermissibly looked beyond the face of the amended compla ...
From Romano v. Kazacos, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13220 (2d Cir. June 29, 2010), in which the issue was whether the complaint was subject to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act: A. Master of the Complaint Appellants initially contend that…
Continue Reading

No Cause of Action under Treaty unless One Is Expressly Set Forth

From Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp., 607 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2010): KATEL argues that the International Telecommunications Regulations ("ITRs") afford it a private right of action against AT&T. This is a matter of first impression for this Court. The ITRs have treaty status and were promulgated by the International Telecommunications Unio ...
From Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp., 607 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2010): KATEL argues that the International Telecommunications Regulations (“ITRs”) afford it a private right of action against AT&T. This is a matter of first impression for this Court. The…
Continue Reading
Previous377378379380381382383Next

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