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

Fed.R.App.P. 46 — “Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Bar” — ABA Standards for Imposing Discipline — Recklessness (Good Quote)

From In re Girardi (Franco v. Dow Chem. Co.), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14292 (9th Cir. July 13, 2010): "A member of the court's bar is subject to suspension or disbarment by the court if the member ... is guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the court's bar." Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(1)(B); see Gadda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 934, 947 (9 ...
From In re Girardi (Franco v. Dow Chem. Co.), 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14292 (9th Cir. July 13, 2010): “A member of the court’s bar is subject to suspension or disbarment by the court if the member … is guilty…
Continue Reading

Who Becomes the Real-Party-in-Interest when a Party Becomes Incompetent? — Roles of State/Federal Law — Rules 17 and 25

From Kuelbs v. Hill, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15757 (8th Cir. July 30, 2010): We first address who became the real party in interest after Kuelbs was declared incompetent. "In a diversity action, state law determines the issue of who is a real party in interest." Jaramillo v. Burkhart, 999 F.2d 1241, 1246 (8th Cir. 1993). W ...
From Kuelbs v. Hill, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15757 (8th Cir. July 30, 2010): We first address who became the real party in interest after Kuelbs was declared incompetent. “In a diversity action, state law determines the issue of who…
Continue Reading

Fed.R.Civ.P. 83 Precludes Striking Brief on Ground It Lacks Tables of Contents and Authorities Required by Local Rule (Nonwillful Violation)

From Hanks v. Shinseki, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76660 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2010): Hanks has moved to strike the defendants' motion, the brief in support thereof, and the appendix in support thereof. As to the defendants' motion and brief, Hanks contends that both should be stricken because the brief is longer than ten pages but does not in ...
From Hanks v. Shinseki, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76660 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2010): Hanks has moved to strike the defendants’ motion, the brief in support thereof, and the appendix in support thereof. As to the defendants’ motion and brief,…
Continue Reading

Standards for Severing Claims into Separate Trials under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21

From Securities and Exchange Commission v. Leslie, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76826 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010): The "determination of a Rule 21(b) motion involves the sound discretion of the trial court . . . ." United States v. Testa, 548 F.2d 847, 856 (9th Cir. 1977). See also Rice v. Sunrise Express, Inc., 209 F.3d 1008, 101 ...
From Securities and Exchange Commission v. Leslie, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76826 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2010): The “determination of a Rule 21(b) motion involves the sound discretion of the trial court . . . .” United States v. Testa,…
Continue Reading

New Article on 2010 Expert Witness Rule Amendments

Download associated file: 2010 Rules Amendment Article.pdf  Linked above is an article analyzing the 2010 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 affecting expert discovery and disclosure. These provisions were tweaked after the Advisory Committee received comm ...
Download associated file: 2010 Rules Amendment Article.pdf  Linked above is an article analyzing the 2010 Amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 affecting expert discovery and disclosure. These provisions were tweaked after the Advisory Committee received comments on…
Continue Reading

Speaking Objections at Deposition Sanctioned under Rule 30(d) — Excessive Number of Unnecessary Objections as Sanctionable Even If None Is Argumentative or Suggestive

From Craig v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14661 (8th Cir. July 19, 2010): Once the deposition started, Harter continually made argumentative and suggestive objections. He also engaged in private and off-the-record conversations with his client, answered multiple questions in place of his client, and instructed his cli ...
From Craig v. St. Anthony’s Med. Ctr., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 14661 (8th Cir. July 19, 2010): Once the deposition started, Harter continually made argumentative and suggestive objections. He also engaged in private and off-the-record conversations with his client, answered…
Continue Reading

Filing of Amended Complaint Does Not Permit Defendant to Amend Counterclaims as of Right to Add Claims Unrelated to the Amendment — 2009 Amendments to Rule 15 and Deletion of Rule 13(f) Explained — 3 Extra Days for Electronic Service

From UPEK, Inc. v. AuthenTec, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76807 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2010): UPEK contends that AuthenTec's entitlement to amend its counterclaims as of right ended twenty-four days after UPEK filed its answer to the counterclaims. UPEK filed an amended complaint on the same day it answered AuthenTec's original counterclai ...
From UPEK, Inc. v. AuthenTec, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76807 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2010): UPEK contends that AuthenTec’s entitlement to amend its counterclaims as of right ended twenty-four days after UPEK filed its answer to the counterclaims. UPEK…
Continue Reading

Admissibility of Blog Posts — Caselaw Split

From QVC, Inc. v. Your Vitamins, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76073 (D. Del. July 27, 2010): [Footnote 19] The court need not definitively determine, therefore, whether blog posts should be deemed relevant and credible evidence (generally and, in this context, as evidence of consumer confusion) — an issue of first impression for th ...
From QVC, Inc. v. Your Vitamins, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76073 (D. Del. July 27, 2010): [Footnote 19] The court need not definitively determine, therefore, whether blog posts should be deemed relevant and credible evidence (generally and, in this…
Continue Reading

Local Controversy Exception of CAFA May Be Proved “Practically” — Wide Discretion Accorded Trial Court to Determine Evidence — No Need for Exhaustive Discovery

From Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund "A" v. CVS Caremark Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73459 (D. Minn. July 19, 2010): The pharmacies suggest the Class Action Fairness Act (the "Fairness Act") grants subject matter jurisdiction because there is minimal diversity, and an aggregate amount in controversy of $5 million or more ...
From Graphic Commc’ns Local 1B Health & Welfare Fund “A” v. CVS Caremark Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73459 (D. Minn. July 19, 2010): The pharmacies suggest the Class Action Fairness Act (the “Fairness Act”) grants subject matter jurisdiction because…
Continue Reading

Failure to Participate in Drafting of Pretrial Order Sanctionable under Rule 16(f) — Lawyer Not Vicariously Liable under § 1927 for Failure to Monitor Co-Counsel

From FM Indus., Inc. v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15057 (7th Cir. July 22, 2010): [Rule 16(f)] Trial never occurred. Local rules require the parties to cooperate to produce a pretrial order. Northern District of Illinois Local Rule 16.1 Appendix ("Standing Order Establishing Pretrial Procedure") Instr ...
From FM Indus., Inc. v. Citicorp Credit Servs., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15057 (7th Cir. July 22, 2010): [Rule 16(f)] Trial never occurred. Local rules require the parties to cooperate to produce a pretrial order. Northern District of Illinois Local…
Continue Reading
Previous382383384385386387388Next

Recent Posts

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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