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

Federal Jurisdiction — State Legal Malpractice Claim Asserting Fiduciary Duty Theory Dependent on Manual of Patent Examination Procedure and C.F.R. Arises under Patent Law

From Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2010): On December 13, 2007, the district court *** imposed sanctions of $ 30,356.89 pursuant to Rule 11 against "Plaintiff's counsel." *** The court emphasized that Count VIII "attempted to manufacture a federal cause of action by couching a garden-variety ...
From Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2010): On December 13, 2007, the district court *** imposed sanctions of $ 30,356.89 pursuant to Rule 11 against “Plaintiff’s counsel.” *** The court emphasized…
Continue Reading

Order Allowing Party to Wear a “Disguise, Mask and/or Costume” at Videotaped Deposition Overturned

From Bertrand v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778 (M.D. Tenn. May 28, 2010): *** Defendants ask this Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge's Order *** which refuses to prohibit Plaintiff from wearing a disguise, mask and/or costume during his videotaped deposition.... The Court can, without a doubt, state that this i ...
From Bertrand v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778 (M.D. Tenn. May 28, 2010): *** Defendants ask this Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge’s Order *** which refuses to prohibit Plaintiff from wearing a disguise, mask and/or costume…
Continue Reading

Claim of Fraudulent Inducement to Hold Stock Barred by New York’s Out-of-Pocket Loss Rule

From Starr Foundation v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 4526, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4443 (1st Dep’t May 27, 2010): At issue on this appeal is the legal sufficiency under New York law of a claim for fraudulent inducement to continue to hold, rather than sell, a large block of the common stock of defendant American Internati ...
From Starr Foundation v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 2010 NY Slip Op 4526, 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4443 (1st Dep’t May 27, 2010): At issue on this appeal is the legal sufficiency under New York law of a claim…
Continue Reading

Negligent Accounting ≠ RICO Violation — Last Minute Cancellation of, and Failure to Attend Deposition One Has Noticed Is Sanctionable under Rule 30(g) — Sanction of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

From Edmonds v. Seavey, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10898 (2d Cir. May 27, 2010): After more than a year of both formal and informal discovery, appellant has adduced no evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that the defendants have engaged in a pattern of "racketeering activity" within the meaning of the civil RICO st ...
From Edmonds v. Seavey, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10898 (2d Cir. May 27, 2010): After more than a year of both formal and informal discovery, appellant has adduced no evidence that would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that…
Continue Reading

Admissibility of Evidence from Non-Party’s Pseudonymous Profile on Social Networking Site

From Griffin v. State, 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 87 (Ct. App. May 27, 2010): I. Did the trial court err in admitting a page printed from a MySpace profile alleged to be that of appellant's girlfriend? *** In the early morning hours of April 24, 2005, Darvell Guest was cornered, unarmed, in the women's bathroom of Ferrari's Bar in ...
From Griffin v. State, 2010 Md. App. LEXIS 87 (Ct. App. May 27, 2010): I. Did the trial court err in admitting a page printed from a MySpace profile alleged to be that of appellant’s girlfriend? *** In the early…
Continue Reading

Motion to Amend Complaint to Withdraw Claims within 21 Days of Rule 11 Motion Precludes Sanctions Based on that Motion Even If New, Frivolous Claims Added — Claims Need Not Be Withdrawn with Prejudice Under Rule 11 — § 1927 Inapplicable to Clients

From Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 2010): This case arises from a land use dispute between the Snellers and the City over the Snellers' efforts to develop property which included a wetland. The Snellers brought suit in federal court against the City, several of its employees, and other defendants no longer ...
From Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 636 (9th Cir. 2010): This case arises from a land use dispute between the Snellers and the City over the Snellers’ efforts to develop property which included a wetland. The Snellers…
Continue Reading

Minnesota Law Does Not Recognize a Cause of Action for Spoliation

From Ansari v. NCS Pearson, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66034 (D. Minn. July 23, 2009): Minnesota does not provide for a substantive civil claim for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence. See Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision Components, Inc., 456 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Minn. 1990).
From Ansari v. NCS Pearson, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66034 (D. Minn. July 23, 2009): Minnesota does not provide for a substantive civil claim for negligent or intentional spoliation of evidence. See Federated Mut. Ins. Co. v. Litchfield Precision…
Continue Reading

Court May Hear Motion to Vacate Award Even If Action was Dismissed without Prejudice when Arbitration Compelled — Rule 60(b) Governs Motion for Reconsideration Filed after More Than 10 (Now 14) Days — 60(b)(6) Inapt if (b)(1), (2) or (3) Triggered

From Owen-Williams v. BB&T Inv. Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51046 (D.D.C. May 24, 2010): By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 31, 2006, this Court granted Defendant BB&T Investment Services, Inc.'s ("Defendant" or "BB&T") request to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's breach of contract claims. The parties subsequently proceeded to ...
From Owen-Williams v. BB&T Inv. Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51046 (D.D.C. May 24, 2010): By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 31, 2006, this Court granted Defendant BB&T Investment Services, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “BB&T”) request to compel arbitration of…
Continue Reading

Lender’s Recovery under Credit Default Swap Does Not Constitute a Double Recovery Precluding It from Enforcing the Underlying Loan

From Zambrano v. HSBC Bank USA, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51371 (E.D. Va. May 25, 2010): Plaintiff asserts a "double recovery" theory based on an incorrect understanding of credit default swaps, "credit enhancements," and loan securitization. According to Plaintiff's theory, Defendants may have received a credit "payoff" or swap upon ...
From Zambrano v. HSBC Bank USA, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51371 (E.D. Va. May 25, 2010): Plaintiff asserts a “double recovery” theory based on an incorrect understanding of credit default swaps, “credit enhancements,” and loan securitization. According to Plaintiff’s…
Continue Reading

Experts — Rebuttal Report Timely If Submitted within Period Specified by Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii) and Pretrial Order Is Silent as to Rebuttal Reports — Caselaw Split

From Hernandez v. Butterball, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50246 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010): The issue boils down to whether Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), which allows disclosure of evidence contradicting or rebutting another party's expert testimony within thirty days after the other party's disclosure, applies here as a default rule where the sche ...
From Hernandez v. Butterball, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50246 (E.D.N.C. May 21, 2010): The issue boils down to whether Rule 26(a)(2)(C)(ii), which allows disclosure of evidence contradicting or rebutting another party’s expert testimony within thirty days after the other…
Continue Reading
Previous383384385386387388389Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

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