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

Federal Circuit Applies American Pipe to Opt-In Class Actions in Court of Federal Claims — Circuit Split on Opt-In Classes and American Pipe

From Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2010): [W]e hold that when a class action complaint is filed in the Court of Federal Claims and class certification is sought prior to expiration of the section 2501 limitations period, the limitations period is tolled. The limitations period is tolled during the period the ...
From Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2010): [W]e hold that when a class action complaint is filed in the Court of Federal Claims and class certification is sought prior to expiration of the section…
Continue Reading

New Supreme Court Opinion on Relation Back of Amendments to Pleadings

Rule 15(c) determines when an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original filing. Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) requires that, within 120 days of filing, the later-named defendant "knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity." The plaintiff in Krupski v. Costa Crocie ...
Rule 15(c) determines when an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original filing. Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) requires that, within 120 days of filing, the later-named defendant “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Hit-and-Run Abuse (Filing, then Withdrawing Claim) Protected from Sanction under Rule 11 by the 21-Day Safe Harbor

From Peer v. Lewis, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10296 (11th Cir. May 20, 2010): This case arises from yet another contentious Florida election. Initially, Jim Naugle, the incumbent mayor, and Lewis were the only candidates in the City of Fort Lauderdale's 2006 mayoral race, which, according to Lewis, increased Lewis' chance of success in the ...
From Peer v. Lewis, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10296 (11th Cir. May 20, 2010): This case arises from yet another contentious Florida election. Initially, Jim Naugle, the incumbent mayor, and Lewis were the only candidates in the City of Fort…
Continue Reading

Filing Complaint Barred by Statute of Limitations and Res Judicata (Affirmative Defenses) Violates Rule 11 Where Plaintiff Warned before Filing — Sanctions Usually Inapt for Appeals of Rule 11 Sanctions

From Huntsman v. Perry Local Schools Board of Educ., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10948 (6th Cir. May 28, 2010) (Unpublished): [T]he suit is clearly barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, so the dismissal was not in error. Additionally, counsel for Defendants notified Attorney Shenise prior to the filing of the complaint in th ...
From Huntsman v. Perry Local Schools Board of Educ., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10948 (6th Cir. May 28, 2010) (Unpublished): [T]he suit is clearly barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, so the dismissal was not in error.…
Continue Reading

RICO Injunctive Relief

From Townsend v. Chase Bank USA N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13116 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2009): Plaintiff's seventh claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). That statute allows district courts to enjoin future violations of RICO. Because Plaintiff's sixth claim for violations of RICO fails, his claim for dec ...
From Townsend v. Chase Bank USA N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13116 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2009): Plaintiff’s seventh claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). That statute allows district courts to enjoin future violations of…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — State Legal Malpractice Claim Asserting Fiduciary Duty Theory Dependent on Manual of Patent Examination Procedure and C.F.R. Arises under Patent Law

From Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2010): On December 13, 2007, the district court *** imposed sanctions of $ 30,356.89 pursuant to Rule 11 against "Plaintiff's counsel." *** The court emphasized that Count VIII "attempted to manufacture a federal cause of action by couching a garden-variety ...
From Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2010): On December 13, 2007, the district court *** imposed sanctions of $ 30,356.89 pursuant to Rule 11 against “Plaintiff’s counsel.” *** The court emphasized…
Continue Reading

Order Allowing Party to Wear a “Disguise, Mask and/or Costume” at Videotaped Deposition Overturned

From Bertrand v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778 (M.D. Tenn. May 28, 2010): *** Defendants ask this Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge's Order *** which refuses to prohibit Plaintiff from wearing a disguise, mask and/or costume during his videotaped deposition.... The Court can, without a doubt, state that this i ...
From Bertrand v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778 (M.D. Tenn. May 28, 2010): *** Defendants ask this Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge’s Order *** which refuses to prohibit Plaintiff from wearing a disguise, mask and/or costume…
Continue Reading

Claim of Fraudulent Inducement to Hold Stock Barred by New York’s Out-of-Pocket Loss Rule

From Starr Foundation v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 4526, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4443 (1st Dep’t May 27, 2010): At issue on this appeal is the legal sufficiency under New York law of a claim for fraudulent inducement to continue to hold, rather than sell, a large block of the common stock of defendant American Internati ...
From Starr Foundation v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 4526, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4443 (1st Dep’t May 27, 2010): At issue on this appeal is the legal sufficiency under New York law of a claim…
Continue Reading

Negligent Accounting ≠ RICO Violation — Last Minute Cancellation of, and Failure to Attend Deposition One Has Noticed Is Sanctionable under Rule 30(g) — Sanction of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

From Edmonds v. Seavey, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10898 (2d Cir. May 27, 2010): After more than a year of both formal and informal discovery, appellant has adduced no evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the defendants have engaged in a pattern of "racketeering activity" within the meaning of the civil RICO st ...
From Edmonds v. Seavey, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10898 (2d Cir. May 27, 2010): After more than a year of both formal and informal discovery, appellant has adduced no evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that…
Continue Reading

Admissibility of Evidence from Non-Party’s Pseudonymous Profile on Social Networking Site

From Griffin v. State, 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 87 (Ct. App. May 27, 2010): I. Did the trial court err in admitting a page printed from a MySpace profile alleged to be that of appellant's girlfriend? *** In the early morning hours of April 24, 2005, Darvell Guest was cornered, unarmed, in the women's bathroom of Ferrari's Bar in ...
From Griffin v. State, 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 87 (Ct. App. May 27, 2010): I. Did the trial court err in admitting a page printed from a MySpace profile alleged to be that of appellant’s girlfriend? *** In the early…
Continue Reading
Previous379380381382383384385Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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