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

28 U.S.C. § 1367 Confers Federal Jurisdiction over Compulsory, and Some Permissive, Counterclaims — First Circuit Follows Second and Seventh

From Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 8929 (1st Cir. April 29, 2010): In an issue of first impression for this court, we hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1367, enacted in 1990, gives federal courts supplemental jurisdiction over both compulsory and at least some permissive counterclaims. This alters this circuit ...
From Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 8929 (1st Cir. April 29, 2010): In an issue of first impression for this court, we hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1367, enacted in 1990, gives federal…
Continue Reading

Mexican Sociedad en Comandita Treated Like Corporation for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes — Factors in Entering Default Judgment — Damages in Excess of Prayer for Relief — Rules for Measuring Damages and Establishing Facts on Default

From Baja Developments LLC v. TSD Loreto Partners, S. en C., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42551 (D. Ariz. April 30, 2010): Following entry of default, Rule 55(b)(2), FED.R.CIV.P., permits a district court to enter final judgment in a case. Entry of default judgment, however, is not a matter of right. *** Entry of default judgment is entirely w ...
From Baja Developments LLC v. TSD Loreto Partners, S. en C., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42551 (D. Ariz. April 30, 2010): Following entry of default, Rule 55(b)(2), FED.R.CIV.P., permits a district court to enter final judgment in a case. Entry…
Continue Reading

Is a New York State Court Summons with Notice (without Complaint) an “Initial Pleading” Removable to Federal Court? May the Federal Court Consider Later-Filed Proposed Complaint?

From MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126910 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009): Plaintiffs argue that removal was improper under Section 1446(b) because the Summons with Notice was not an initial pleading. *** Specifically, Plaintiffs believe that removability was not ascertainable from the face of the Summons with No ...
From MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126910 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 2009): Plaintiffs argue that removal was improper under Section 1446(b) because the Summons with Notice was not an initial pleading. *** Specifically, Plaintiffs…
Continue Reading

Metadata Associated with Public Records Are Themselves Public Records within Arizona Statute

From Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009): Arizona law provides that "[p]ublic records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during office hours." Ariz. Rev. Stat. ("A.R.S.") § 39-121 (2001). The City of Phoenix denied a public records request for ...
From Lake v. City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009): Arizona law provides that “[p]ublic records and other matters in the custody of any officer shall be open to inspection by any person at all times during…
Continue Reading

Whether Expert Testimony is Correct vs. Whether It is Reliable — Good Quote

From Main Street Am. Group v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22667 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2010): This court has "broad discretion in admitting scientific testimony that could later be tested by vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof." *** The proponents of ...
From Main Street Am. Group v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22667 (D. Md. Mar. 11, 2010): This court has “broad discretion in admitting scientific testimony that could later be tested by vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary…
Continue Reading

Legal Malpractice Claim Based on Bad Advice to Enter Stip Not Foreclosed by Earlier Court’s Refusal to Set Aside Stip

From Scartozzi v. Potruch, 2010 NY Slip Op 3102,; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3068 (2d Dept. April 13, 2010): Contrary to the defendants' contention, the Supreme Court erred in determining that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from challenging as legal malpractice the defendant's advice that she waive her right to seek prior counse ...
From Scartozzi v. Potruch, 2010 NY Slip Op 3102,; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3068 (2d Dept. April 13, 2010): Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the Supreme Court erred in determining that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff from challenging as…
Continue Reading

Applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to Pro Se Litigants — Caselaw Split

From McCormick v. Brzezinski, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36106 (E.D. Mich. April 13, 2010): Defendant relies on Wages v. Internal Revenue Service, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1989) to support his argument that sanctions under section 1927 apply to pro se litigants. But, by its terms, section 1927 applies to only "attorney[s ...
From McCormick v. Brzezinski, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36106 (E.D. Mich. April 13, 2010): Defendant relies on Wages v. Internal Revenue Service, 915 F.2d 1230, 1235-36 (9th Cir. 1989) to support his argument that sanctions under section 1927 apply to…
Continue Reading

Do Lawyers Uninvolved in Trial Enjoy a First Amendment Right to Juror Access for CLE Program? — District Court’s Failure to Exercise Meaningful Discretion = Abuse of Discretion

From Clyma v. Sunoco, Inc., 594 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 2010): A civil jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff Clyma and against Defendant Sunoco in the employment discrimination dispute underlying this matter. With cross-appeals pending in this Court, Movant Oklahoma Employment Lawyers Association (OELA) submitted to the district court an "Ap ...
From Clyma v. Sunoco, Inc., 594 F.3d 777 (10th Cir. 2010): A civil jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff Clyma and against Defendant Sunoco in the employment discrimination dispute underlying this matter. With cross-appeals pending in this Court, Movant Oklahoma…
Continue Reading

Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards — Absent Affirmative Consent, Classwide Arbitration Barred — Ripeness

From Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010): [Grant of Certiorari Implicitly Rejects Unarticulated Challenge to Ripeness.] [Footnote 2] Invoking an argument not pressed in or considered by the courts below, the dissent concludes that the question presented is not ripe for our revi ...
From Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. Animalfeeds Int’l Corp., 130 S. Ct. 1758 (2010): [Grant of Certiorari Implicitly Rejects Unarticulated Challenge to Ripeness.] [Footnote 2] Invoking an argument not pressed in or considered by the courts below, the dissent concludes that…
Continue Reading

No Rule 11 Sanctions for “Incorrect Belief” about the Law, Instead of “Callous Disregard” of It

From Akins-Brakefield v. Philip Envt’l Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25062 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2010): [Defendant] PESC contends that Plaintiff's claims for Assault (Count V), Battery (Count VI), Negligent Supervision (Count VII) and Willful FMLA violations (Count VIII) were, on the face of her Second Amended Complaint, wholly devoid of ...
From Akins-Brakefield v. Philip Envt’l Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25062 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2010): [Defendant] PESC contends that Plaintiff’s claims for Assault (Count V), Battery (Count VI), Negligent Supervision (Count VII) and Willful FMLA violations (Count VIII) were,…
Continue Reading
Previous387388389390391392393Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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