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

Rule 50(b) Motion for JMOL and 59(a) Motion for a New Trial — Impact of General Verdict: Is a Single Error Enough to Compel Reversal under Sunkist?

From BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Flint Hills Resources, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28477 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2010): BP Amoco seeks relief under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). The standard under both rules is difficult to satisfy. A. Judgment As a Matter of Law Pursuant to Rule 5 ...
From BP Amoco Chem. Co. v. Flint Hills Resources, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28477 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2010): BP Amoco seeks relief under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a). The…
Continue Reading

Party (as Opposed to Non-Party) May Not Immediately Appeal Civil (as Opposed to Criminal) Contempt Order to Obtain Review of Adverse Attorney-Client Privilege Decision

From United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010) (procedural posture: Myers withheld documents subject to subpoena; on this appeal she challenges the District Court order directing her (1) to produce any missing items she conceded were not protected by the Fifth Amendment and (2) to give all other missing items to the United States privilege team fo ...
From United States v. Myers, 593 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010) (procedural posture: Myers withheld documents subject to subpoena; on this appeal she challenges the District Court order directing her (1) to produce any missing items she conceded were not…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — The Current Status of Grable

From Stern v. Baldwin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27709 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2010): This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Bernard Stern's motion for remand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). *** On June 9, 2009, Plaintiff Bernard Stern, a shareholder of Quest Diagnostics, Inc. ("Quest"), filed a derivative suit against the directo ...
From Stern v. Baldwin, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27709 (D.N.J. Mar. 24, 2010): This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Bernard Stern’s motion for remand, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). *** On June 9, 2009, Plaintiff Bernard Stern,…
Continue Reading

Text Message Adequately Authenticated by Sender’s Name as Stored on Cell Phone Atop Message, Sender’s Customary Signature, and Her Testimony That She “Could Have” Sent It

From State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. Sup. Ct. 2010) (construing North Dakota Rule of Evidence 901(a), which is identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a)) (assault prosecution): At trial, the complainant testified on direct examination about several text messages sent to him on October 31, 2008. He testified he knew the text m ...
From State v. Thompson, 777 N.W.2d 617 (N.D. Sup. Ct. 2010) (construing North Dakota Rule of Evidence 901(a), which is identical to Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a)) (assault prosecution): At trial, the complainant testified on direct examination about several text…
Continue Reading

Electronic Spoliation — Failure to Initiate Litigation Hold in 2003-04 Merely Negligent — Trigger Date for Preservation Duty Different for Individuals Than for Entity Defendant

From Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28476 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010): Plaintiffs Field Day LLC f/k/a/ New York Music Festival and AEG Live LLC f/k/a/ AEG Concerts LLC *** commenced this action for money damages and injunctive relief against the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Department of Health Service ...
From Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28476 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2010): Plaintiffs Field Day LLC f/k/a/ New York Music Festival and AEG Live LLC f/k/a/ AEG Concerts LLC *** commenced this action for money…
Continue Reading

Arbitrator’s Failure to Rule on Recusal Motion Does Not Require Vacatur of Award Where American Arbitration Association Has Considered Motion

From Regnery Publishing, Inc. v. Miniter, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5746 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 17, 2010): Appellant has not shown that the arbitrator's failure to rule on appellant's motion for recusal required vacatur of an arbitration award as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10(a), in light of the American Arbitration Associa ...
From Regnery Publishing, Inc. v. Miniter, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 5746 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 17, 2010): Appellant has not shown that the arbitrator’s failure to rule on appellant’s motion for recusal required vacatur of an arbitration award as set forth…
Continue Reading

RICO — Limited Partners Lack Standing to Sue for Injuries to Limited Partnership

From Desoto v. Condon, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010): Tommy Desoto and others who are limited partners of Trago LP, shareholders of Trago International, or creditors of Trago LP (collectively, Desoto) appeal the district court's order dismissing with prejudice their Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ...
From Desoto v. Condon, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 2010): Tommy Desoto and others who are limited partners of Trago LP, shareholders of Trago International, or creditors of Trago LP (collectively, Desoto) appeal the district court’s…
Continue Reading

Rule 54(b) and Reconsideration “As Justice Requires” — 4 Considerations

From Alexander v. FBI, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21386 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2010): Rule 54(b) allows a court to modify any ruling that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liability of fewer than all the parties, which does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties at any time before the entry of final judgment. FED. R ...
From Alexander v. FBI, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21386 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2010): Rule 54(b) allows a court to modify any ruling that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liability of fewer than all the parties, which…
Continue Reading

Denial of § 1927 Sanctions Because of Plaintiff’s Poor Financial Condition = Abuse of Discretion

From Hall v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 595 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2010): The district court in this case was critical of Hall's attorney, noting that the Plan "has been forced to spend an inordinate amount of time and money defending against repeated meritless motions filed by [Hall] in an attempt to have a second, third, or further ...
From Hall v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston, 595 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2010): The district court in this case was critical of Hall’s attorney, noting that the Plan “has been forced to spend an inordinate amount of time…
Continue Reading

Expert Entitled to Compensation from Deposing Party for Preparation as Well as Deposition Time, But Only at Rate Charged to Party That Engaged Him or Her

From Borel v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24379 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2010): Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell while descending a fixed ladder on a bunk bed. To impute liability on defendant, plaintiff retained Robert E. Borison as an expert safety witness. ...
From Borel v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24379 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2010): Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for injuries allegedly sustained when plaintiff slipped and fell while descending a fixed ladder on a bunk bed. To…
Continue Reading
Previous386387388389390391392Next

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