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

Elements of Associational Standing — Associational Standing Exists to Assert Injunctive, But Not Damages, Claims (11th Circuit) — Application to ERISA

From Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738 (11th Cir. July 6, 2010): 3. Associational Standing The representative associations argue that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over their claims, even if the claims of the individual Appellants were completely preempted by ERISA. ...
From Borrero v. United Healthcare of N.Y., Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738 (11th Cir. July 6, 2010): 3. Associational Standing The representative associations argue that the district court lacked federal jurisdiction over their claims, even if the claims of…
Continue Reading

Elements of Judicial Estoppel (Majority View) — Application to Statements of Counsel

From Ries v. Paige, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13780 (5th Cir. June 28, 2010): "Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that 'prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or some earlier proceeding.'" Hopkins v. Cornerstone Am., 545 F.3d 338, 347 (5th Ci ...
From Ries v. Paige, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13780 (5th Cir. June 28, 2010): “Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that ‘prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken…
Continue Reading

Categories of Preemption: Express vs. Conflict vs. Field — Passenger’s State Law Personal Injury Claim for Negligence Against Air Carrier Not Preempted by Federal Aviation Act

From Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13721 (3d Cir. July 6, 2010): Joseph Elassaad appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Independence Air, Inc., with respect to his negligence claim for injuries sustained when he fell while disembarking from an airplane at the Philadelphia International Airpo ...
From Elassaad v. Independence Air, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13721 (3d Cir. July 6, 2010): Joseph Elassaad appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Independence Air, Inc., with respect to his negligence claim for injuries sustained…
Continue Reading

Arbitration Award between Plaintiff and One of Two Defendants Properly Reduced to Judgment under Rule 54(b) Despite Existence of Unresolved Litigation against Second Defendant — 54(b) Factors

The City terminated its contractor (MCI) in MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13495 (4th Cir. July 1, 2010), and the contractor sued both the city and the engineering firm (Hazen and Sawyer). The contractor and the city elected to arbitrate their dispute rather than litigate it in the court action; the city won; and it success ...
The City terminated its contractor (MCI) in MCI Constructors, LLC v. City of Greensboro, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13495 (4th Cir. July 1, 2010), and the contractor sued both the city and the engineering firm (Hazen and Sawyer). The contractor…
Continue Reading

Attorneys’ Fees and Prejudgment Interest Awarded by C.D. Cal. in RICO Action (Default Judgment) — Voluntarily Halving Actual Fees “Eminently Reasonable”

From Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65767 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2010): RICO *** requires an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. See 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) ("Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United ...
From Monex Deposit Co. v. Gilliam, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65767 (C.D. Cal. May 24, 2010): RICO *** requires an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) (“Any person injured in his business or property by…
Continue Reading

Communications Between Investment Banker and Lawyer for Common Client Unprivileged, as Are Communications Between Lawyer and Client cc’ing Investment Banker

From Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61640 (D. Mass. June 22, 2010): This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion to compel documents from defendant, JP Morgan Chase & Co. The underlying lawsuit relates to the leveraged buyouts of a number of companies of which plaintiffs were shareholders (the ...
From Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61640 (D. Mass. June 22, 2010): This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiffs’ motion to compel documents from defendant, JP Morgan Chase & Co. The underlying lawsuit…
Continue Reading

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule vs. Artful Pleading Doctrine: Is the Plaintiff Really the Master of Its Complaint?

From Romano v. Kazacos, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13220 (2d Cir. June 29, 2010), in which the issue was whether the complaint was subject to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act: A. Master of the Complaint Appellants initially contend that the District Court impermissibly looked beyond the face of the amended compla ...
From Romano v. Kazacos, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13220 (2d Cir. June 29, 2010), in which the issue was whether the complaint was subject to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act: A. Master of the Complaint Appellants initially contend that…
Continue Reading

No Cause of Action under Treaty unless One Is Expressly Set Forth

From Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp., 607 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2010): KATEL argues that the International Telecommunications Regulations ("ITRs") afford it a private right of action against AT&T. This is a matter of first impression for this Court. The ITRs have treaty status and were promulgated by the International Telecommunications Unio ...
From Katel LLC v. AT&T Corp., 607 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2010): KATEL argues that the International Telecommunications Regulations (“ITRs”) afford it a private right of action against AT&T. This is a matter of first impression for this Court. The…
Continue Reading

35 U.S.C. § 285 vs. Inherent Power Sanctions

From Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009): Expert witness fees are not available under § 285 but may be awarded under the Court's inherent power to sanction fraud or abuse of the judicial process. See Amsted Industries Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 23 F.3d 374, 377-78 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
From Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elecs., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2009): Expert witness fees are not available under § 285 but may be awarded under the Court’s inherent power to sanction fraud or abuse of the…
Continue Reading

Meaning of “Evident Partiality” as Ground for Vacating Arbitration Award under §10(a)(2) of Federal Arbitration Act

From Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc. v. Pyrotek, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64238 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2010): "The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") expresses a presumption that arbitration awards will be confirmed." *** "When courts are called on to review an arbitrator's decision, the review is very narrow; [it is] one of the narrow ...
From Molten Metal Equip. Innovations, Inc. v. Pyrotek, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64238 (N.D. Ohio June 29, 2010): “The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) expresses a presumption that arbitration awards will be confirmed.” *** “When courts are called on to…
Continue Reading
Previous387388389390391392393Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

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