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

Can a Telephone Number Be the Subject of a Conversion Claim?

From Staton Holdings, Inc. v. First Data Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48688 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2010): Plaintiff Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Staton Wholesale ("Staton") is a business based in Dallas, Texas. Since the early 1990s, Staton has been the assignee and exclusive end-user subscriber of the toll-free telephone number (800) 888-8888 ...
From Staton Holdings, Inc. v. First Data Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48688 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2010): Plaintiff Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Staton Wholesale (“Staton”) is a business based in Dallas, Texas. Since the early 1990s, Staton has been…
Continue Reading

Distinguishing Rule 701 from 702 Testimony — Failure to Provide Report Bars Expert Testimony under 702 but Not Lay Opinion under 701 — Amended 26(a)(1) Disclosure Filed After Discovery But Within Pretrial Order Deadline Is Timely

From Braun Builders, Inc. v. Kancherlapalli, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48691 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2010): Braun's first motion in limine seeks to exclude the testimony of Gregory Guza, contending that Guza should not be permitted to testify as an expert at trial because he was not timely disclosed as a witness and an expert report was not pr ...
From Braun Builders, Inc. v. Kancherlapalli, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48691 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2010): Braun’s first motion in limine seeks to exclude the testimony of Gregory Guza, contending that Guza should not be permitted to testify as an…
Continue Reading

Authenticated Website Evidence Excluded as Hearsay

From Osborn v. Butler, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46083 (D. Idaho May 11, 2010): [Plaintiff filed a] motion to strike Exhibit 1 and paragraph 3 of the Skinner Affidavit on the grounds that the exhibit, which purports to be a website prepared by Plaintiff Michael Osborn, contains inadmissible hearsay and the factual assertions based thereon a ...
From Osborn v. Butler, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46083 (D. Idaho May 11, 2010): [Plaintiff filed a] motion to strike Exhibit 1 and paragraph 3 of the Skinner Affidavit on the grounds that the exhibit, which purports to be a…
Continue Reading

Mandamus Granted to Reverse Order Finding Blanket, Subject Matter Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product — Mohawk Supports Mandamus (i) by Foreclosing Appeal and (ii) Because Blanket Waiver Order Is “Particularly Injurious”

From Hernandez v. Tanninen, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9681 (9th Cir. May 12, 2010): Hernandez was initially represented by Ferguson. During their initial meeting, Hernandez told Ferguson that Tanninen witnessed the discrimination and would corroborate Hernandez's story. In the course of investigating Hernandez's claims, Ferguson had a series ...
From Hernandez v. Tanninen, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9681 (9th Cir. May 12, 2010): Hernandez was initially represented by Ferguson. During their initial meeting, Hernandez told Ferguson that Tanninen witnessed the discrimination and would corroborate Hernandez’s story. In the course…
Continue Reading

RICO — Foreseeability, Alone, Insufficient to State Causation After Hemi Group

From Couch v. Cate, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9956 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010)(unpublished): Officers Couch, Jimenez, and Torres, all corrections officers at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), appeal from the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their two causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and their ...
From Couch v. Cate, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9956 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010)(unpublished): Officers Couch, Jimenez, and Torres, all corrections officers at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), appeal from the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of…
Continue Reading

Legal Standards Governing the Creation of Private Rights of Action by Statute

From Logan v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46314 (C.D. Cal. April 12, 2010): A statute explicitly creates a private right of action when the statute contains language that defines a cause of action. *** Statutes that expressly provide for a private right of action identify the person(s) able to bring suit, those that are potentia ...
From Logan v. U.S. Bank N.A., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46314 (C.D. Cal. April 12, 2010): A statute explicitly creates a private right of action when the statute contains language that defines a cause of action. *** Statutes that expressly…
Continue Reading

Legal Principles of Claim Construction

From Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21100 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2010): Claim construction is a question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 388-90, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1996). When construing the claims of a patent ...
From Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21100 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2010): Claim construction is a question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 977-78 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370,…
Continue Reading

If Expert Evidence Is Critical to Class Certification, Court Must Perform Full Daubert Analysis Before Ruling on Certification

From Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010): We hold that when an expert's report or testimony is critical to class certification, as it is here, ... a district court must conclusively rule on any challenge to the expert's qualifications or submissions prior to ruling on a class certification motion. That is, the dist ...
From Am. Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, 600 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 2010): We hold that when an expert’s report or testimony is critical to class certification, as it is here, … a district court must conclusively rule on any…
Continue Reading

Recall of Appellate Mandate Is Extraordinary Remedy Reserved for Matters of Last Resort, Requiring Grave Unforeseen Contingency, and Unwarranted Where Other Avenues to Raise Intervening Supreme Court Decision Exist

From Kashner Davidson Securities Corp. v. Mscisz, 601 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2010): Kashner Davidson argues that a recent Supreme Court decision, Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 128 S. Ct. 1396, 170 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2008), undermines our earlier mandate in this case. In Hall Street, the Supreme Court held that ...
From Kashner Davidson Securities Corp. v. Mscisz, 601 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2010): Kashner Davidson argues that a recent Supreme Court decision, Hall Street Assocs. v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 128 S. Ct. 1396, 170 L. Ed. 2d 254…
Continue Reading

Rooker-Feldman Does Not Apply to the Decision of a State Administrative Agency

From Gifford v. Meda, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45322 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2010): Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, "lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments." Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006). The Supreme Court in Lance, and in its prior term in ...
From Gifford v. Meda, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45322 (E.D. Mich. May 10, 2010): Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “lower federal courts are precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006). The…
Continue Reading
Previous381382383384385386387Next

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