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

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

Spoliation — The Evidentiary Rationale for the Adverse Inference — Impact on Summary Judgment

From Siggelko v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21223 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009): A party's intentional destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue at trial can support an inference that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. See Kronisch v. United States, < ...
From Siggelko v. Kohl’s Dep’t Stores, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21223 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2009): A party’s intentional destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue at trial can support an inference that the evidence would have been…
Continue Reading

RICO: Iqbal + Twombly + 9(b) = Dismissal of § 1962(c)-(d) Claims; Deception Mandatory for Mail/Wire Fraud; Allegations of Parallel Conduct Generally Insufficient to Show Conspiracy; 11th Circuit Declines to Decide If Conspiracy Claim Falls

From Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9928 (11th Cir. May 14, 2010): Plaintiffs contracted with Defendants to provide dental services to Defendants' members through dental service managed care plans. Plaintiffs *** allege, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly-situated dentists, that Defendants "e ...
From Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9928 (11th Cir. May 14, 2010): Plaintiffs contracted with Defendants to provide dental services to Defendants’ members through dental service managed care plans. Plaintiffs *** allege, on behalf of…
Continue Reading

Emails Authenticated by Production in Discovery — Evidence on Summary Judgment Usable If It Could be Reduced to Admissible Form at Trial

From United States v. Gray Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27652 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2010): CCG's argument as to the authenticity of the exhibits is unavailing for several reasons. First, "there is no requirement that evidence be presented in admissible form as long as the evidence would be admissible at trial. The evidence at issue would ...
From United States v. Gray Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27652 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2010): CCG’s argument as to the authenticity of the exhibits is unavailing for several reasons. First, “there is no requirement that evidence be presented…
Continue Reading

No Appellate Review of Denial of Remand on Basis that Bankruptcy Removal Statute Trumps Anti-Removal Provision of Securities Act — Extent of Reliance on Unpublished Opinions

From N.J. Dep’t of Treasury v. Fuld, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9991 (3d Cir. May 17, 2010): The State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment ("New Jersey") appeals the District Court's order denying its motion to remand the action it brought under the Securities Act of 1933, a statute that specifically precludes remo ...
From N.J. Dep’t of Treasury v. Fuld, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 9991 (3d Cir. May 17, 2010): The State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury, Division of Investment (“New Jersey”) appeals the District Court’s order denying its motion to remand…
Continue Reading

NFL Ticket Merely Affords Holder Right to View Game, Not Right to See Honest One — Patriots’ Spygate Scandal Causes No Cognizable Injury

From Mayer v. Belichick, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10212 (3d Cir. May 19, 2010): 2. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New York Jets ticket-holders against the Defendant New England Patriots and their coach, Defendant Bi ...
From Mayer v. Belichick, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10212 (3d Cir. May 19, 2010): 2. This case is brought by a New York Jets season ticket-holder on behalf of all similarly situated New York Jets season ticket-holders and other New…
Continue Reading

Can a Telephone Number Be the Subject of a Conversion Claim?

From Staton Holdings, Inc. v. First Data Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48688 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2010): Plaintiff Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Staton Wholesale ("Staton") is a business based in Dallas, Texas. Since the early 1990s, Staton has been the assignee and exclusive end-user subscriber of the toll-free telephone number (800) 888-8888 ...
From Staton Holdings, Inc. v. First Data Corp, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48688 (N.D. Tex. May 11, 2010): Plaintiff Staton Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Staton Wholesale (“Staton”) is a business based in Dallas, Texas. Since the early 1990s, Staton has been…
Continue Reading

Distinguishing Rule 701 from 702 Testimony — Failure to Provide Report Bars Expert Testimony under 702 but Not Lay Opinion under 701 — Amended 26(a)(1) Disclosure Filed After Discovery But Within Pretrial Order Deadline Is Timely

From Braun Builders, Inc. v. Kancherlapalli, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48691 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2010): Braun's first motion in limine seeks to exclude the testimony of Gregory Guza, contending that Guza should not be permitted to testify as an expert at trial because he was not timely disclosed as a witness and an expert report was not pr ...
From Braun Builders, Inc. v. Kancherlapalli, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48691 (E.D. Mich. May 18, 2010): Braun’s first motion in limine seeks to exclude the testimony of Gregory Guza, contending that Guza should not be permitted to testify as an…
Continue Reading
Previous389390391392393394395Next

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