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

Emails Authenticated by Production in Discovery — Evidence on Summary Judgment Usable If It Could be Reduced to Admissible Form at Trial

From United States v. Gray Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27652 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2010): CCG's argument as to the authenticity of the exhibits is unavailing for several reasons. First, "there is no requirement that evidence be presented in admissible form as long as the evidence would be admissible at trial. The evidence at issue would ...
From United States v. Gray Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27652 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2010): CCG’s argument as to the authenticity of the exhibits is unavailing for several reasons. First, “there is no requirement that evidence be presented…
Continue Reading

No Appellate Review of Denial of Remand on Basis that Bankruptcy Removal Statute Trumps Anti-Removal Provision of Securities Act — Extent of Reliance on Unpublished Opinions

From N.J. Dep’t of Treasury v. Fuld, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9991 (3d Cir. May 17, 2010): The State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment ("New Jersey") appeals the District Court's order denying its motion to remand the action it brought under the Securities Act of 1933, a statute that specifically precludes remo ...
From N.J. Dep’t of Treasury v. Fuld, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9991 (3d Cir. May 17, 2010): The State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment (“New Jersey”) appeals the District Court’s order denying its motion to remand…
Continue Reading

NFL Ticket Merely Affords Holder Right to View Game, Not Right to See Honest One — Patriots’ Spygate Scandal Causes No Cognizable Injury

From Mayer v. Belichick, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10212 (3d Cir. May 19, 2010): 2. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New York Jets ticket-holders against the Defendant New England Patriots and their coach, Defendant Bi ...
From Mayer v. Belichick, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10212 (3d Cir. May 19, 2010): 2. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New…
Continue Reading

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
Previous382383384385386387388Next

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