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

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

35 U.S.C. § 285 vs. Inherent Power Sanctions

From Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009): Expert witness fees are not available under § 285 but may be awarded under the Court's inherent power to sanction fraud or abuse of the judicial process. See Amsted Industries Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 23 F.3d 374, 377-78 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
From Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009): Expert witness fees are not available under § 285 but may be awarded under the Court’s inherent power to sanction fraud or abuse of the…
Continue Reading

Meaning of “Evident Partiality” as Ground for Vacating Arbitration Award under §10(a)(2) of Federal Arbitration Act

From Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc. v. Pyrotek, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64238 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2010): "The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") expresses a presumption that arbitration awards will be confirmed." *** "When courts are called on to review an arbitrator's decision, the review is very narrow; [it is] one of the narrow ...
From Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc. v. Pyrotek, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64238 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2010): “The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) expresses a presumption that arbitration awards will be confirmed.” *** “When courts are called on to…
Continue Reading

Retainer Agreement Conclusively Establishes Scope of Representation and Duty in Legal Malpractice Action in New York

From Hallman v. Kantor, 72 A.D.3d 895 (2d Dept. 2010): The defendants submitted a retainer agreement reflecting that the plaintiff "understood, accepted and agreed" that the "scope of" their "engagement" was "to represent" her as a co-executor of her deceased father's estate. This documentary evidence conclusively established a defens ...
From Hallman v. Kantor, 72 A.D.3d 895 (2d Dept. 2010): The defendants submitted a retainer agreement reflecting that the plaintiff “understood, accepted and agreed” that the “scope of” their “engagement” was “to represent” her as a co-executor of her deceased…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Adverse Inference Instruction — Circuit Breakdown as to Whether Bad Faith, Intentionality or Mere Negligence Is Needed

Two cases: 1. From United States v. Laurent, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12449 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010): A "spoliation" instruction, allowing an adverse inference, is commonly appropriate in both civil and criminal cases where there is evidence from which a reasonable jury might conclude that evidence favorable to one side was dest ...
Two cases: 1. From United States v. Laurent, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12449 (1st Cir. June 17, 2010): A “spoliation” instruction, allowing an adverse inference, is commonly appropriate in both civil and criminal cases where there is evidence from which…
Continue Reading

Email Sufficiently Authenticated by Appearance and Contents — 12(f) Inapplicable to Affidavits and Evidence — Enforcement of Local Rule Limiting Brief Page Length Is Discretionary with the Court

From Hardin v. Belmont Textile Mach. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61121 (W.D.N.C. June 7, 2010): [12(f).] Rule 12(f) provides that "[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (emphasis added). Contrary to Plaintiff' ...
From Hardin v. Belmont Textile Mach. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61121 (W.D.N.C. June 7, 2010): [12(f).] Rule 12(f) provides that “[t]he court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed.…
Continue Reading

May a Party Obtain a Protective Order Relieving It of the Duty to Access Back-Up Tapes When that Party’s Negligent Failure to Issue a Litigation Hold Caused the Data to be Backed Up? Yes.

From Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62948 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010): The first question is whether, as a matter of law, a protective order under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) can ever be granted to a party when the evidence is inaccessible because of that party's failure to institute a litigation hold. The Court examines this questi ...
From Major Tours, Inc. v. Colorel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62948 (D.N.J. June 22, 2010): The first question is whether, as a matter of law, a protective order under Rule 26(b)(2)(B) can ever be granted to a party when the…
Continue Reading
Previous381382383384385386387Next

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