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

Full Compensation of Insured Does Not Preclude Contractual Subrogation — Issue of First Impression under Texas Law

From Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14354 (5th Cir. July 13, 2010): The first issue that we must address is one of first impression for this court: whether Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 236 S.W.3d 765, 776 (Tex. 2007), precludes contractual subrogation simply because ...
From Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14354 (5th Cir. July 13, 2010): The first issue that we must address is one of first impression for this court: whether Mid-Continent Insurance Co. v. Liberty Mutual…
Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Applies Regional Circuit Law to Discovery Matters Generally But Not When Substantive Patent Law Is Implicated

From In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas and Total Bank Solutions, LLC, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010): On August 19, 2009, Deutsche sought a protective order including a patent prosecution bar preventing anyone who gains access in the litigation to documents marked "confidential — patent prosecution bar" from any involvement in pro ...
From In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas and Total Bank Solutions, LLC, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010): On August 19, 2009, Deutsche sought a protective order including a patent prosecution bar preventing anyone who gains access in the…
Continue Reading

Neither Willful Ignorance Nor Division of Labor States a Defense to § 1927 Sanctions when Asserted by Lead Counsel

From In re Girardi (Franco v. Dow Chemical Co.), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14292 (9th Cir. July 13, 2010) (adopting R&R of Senior Circuit Judge Tashima, sitting as Special Master): The young associate drafted the Opening Brief, which contends that Dole Food Company was the judgment debtor. He repeated that contention in the Reply Brief, altho ...
From In re Girardi (Franco v. Dow Chemical Co.), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14292 (9th Cir. July 13, 2010) (adopting R&R of Senior Circuit Judge Tashima, sitting as Special Master): The young associate drafted the Opening Brief, which contends that…
Continue Reading

District Court May Impose Costs Pursuant to FRAP 39(a)(4) & (e) without Prior Appellate Itemization — Cost of Letter of Credit to Stay Execution — De Novo Review of District Court Interpretations of FRAP

From L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. OSI Sys., Inc., 607 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2010): Appellant OSI Systems, Inc. ("OSI") appeals from an April 27, 2009, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty, J.) upholding the district court clerk's decision to tax to OSI, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Proce ...
From L-3 Commc’ns Corp. v. OSI Sys., Inc., 607 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 2010): Appellant OSI Systems, Inc. (“OSI”) appeals from an April 27, 2009, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Crotty,…
Continue Reading

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
Previous380381382383384385386Next

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