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

“Something More” Is Not Required for Parent + Subsidiary to Constitute a RICO Enterprise — Circuit Split

From Watts v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56275 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2009): Defendants also argue that a parent corporation is not distinct from its subsidiary for purposes of a section 1962(c) claim. Section 1962(c) requires a person "associated with" an enterprise. 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). Courts have held that because an en ...
From Watts v. Allstate Indem. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56275 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2009): Defendants also argue that a parent corporation is not distinct from its subsidiary for purposes of a section 1962(c) claim. Section 1962(c) requires a…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power — Professional Plaintiff Cannot Show Good Faith by Claiming Reliance on Advice of Counsel, Particularly when Reasserting Claims Repeatedly Rejected by Other Courts

From Stalley v. Mountain States Health Alliance, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8643 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2010): Plaintiff — along with his partner in litigation, Erin Brockovich — filed numerous lawsuits in federal courts across the country, claiming the Medicare Secondary Payer Act ("MSP"), 42 U.S.C. § 1395y(b), was a qui tam statute ...
From Stalley v. Mountain States Health Alliance, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8643 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2010): Plaintiff — along with his partner in litigation, Erin Brockovich — filed numerous lawsuits in federal courts across the country, claiming the Medicare…
Continue Reading

Applying Daubert and Rule 702 to Historians’ Testimony

From Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mich. v. Granholm, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9498 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2010): The Daubert factors are not particularly helpful in this case. See First Tenn. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Barreto, 268 F.3d 319, 335 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Jones, 107 F.3d 1147, 1158 (6th Cir. 199 ...
From Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mich. v. Granholm, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9498 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2010): The Daubert factors are not particularly helpful in this case. See First Tenn. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Barreto, 268 F.3d 319,…
Continue Reading

Electronic Fund Transfers at Intermediary Bank Are Not Subject to Attachment to Secure Payment of International Arbitration Award, Even After ETFs Converted to Cash Deposits — Independent Jurisdiction over Arbitral Defendant Required

From Opal Finance Ltd. v. Agrenco Madeira Comercio Internacional LDA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9826 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010): On October 16, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that EFTs being processed by an intermediary bank are not subject to attachment under Rule B of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and ...
From Opal Finance Ltd. v. Agrenco Madeira Comercio Internacional LDA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9826 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2010): On October 16, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that EFTs being processed by an intermediary bank…
Continue Reading

Removal — Fourth Circuit Adopts Last-Served Defendant Rule, Distinguishing Prior Adoption of First-Served Defendant Rule as Dicta

From Barbour v Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2389 (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 2010): The [Plaintiff] Retirees served the International Union with the complaint on March 20, 2008. Local 1183 was served with process on March 29, 2008. On April 28, 2009, more than thirty days af ...
From Barbour v Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2389 (4th Cir. Feb. 4, 2010): The [Plaintiff] Retirees served the International Union with the complaint on March 20, 2008. Local 1183…
Continue Reading

How Not to Authenticate Website Evidence

From Cook v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6905 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010): The website print outs at issue are attached to Nani Kim's declaration. *** In the first paragraph of her declaration, Kim states that she has personal knowledge of the contents of her declaration. *** However, Kim's declaration does not provide t ...
From Cook v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6905 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010): The website print outs at issue are attached to Nani Kim’s declaration. *** In the first paragraph of her declaration, Kim states that…
Continue Reading

Traditional vs. Advisory Mandamus — Appropriateness of Allocating Portion of Settlements in MDL to Lead Counsel

From In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2010) (Kaplan, D.J., concurring) (extensive citations omitted throughout): A. The Traditional Mandamus Standard Mandamus and other prerogative writs "are reserved for really extraordinary causes." Mandamus is "not to be used as a substit ...
From In re Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2260 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2010) (Kaplan, D.J., concurring) (extensive citations omitted throughout): A. The Traditional Mandamus Standard Mandamus and other prerogative writs “are reserved for really extraordinary causes.”…
Continue Reading

CAFA — If Class Isn’t Definitionally Limited to State Citizens, Plaintiffs Must Offer Evidence to Establish Home State Exception — Or Define Class in Such a Way as to Insure It

From In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1928 (7th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010): The complaint alleged violations of the Kansas Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the suit fell within the home-state exception to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). See 28 U ...
From In re Sprint Nextel Corp., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1928 (7th Cir. Jan. 28, 2010): The complaint alleged violations of the Kansas Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that…
Continue Reading

Bankruptcy Court Power to Impose Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions

From In re Green, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 195, 2010 WL 346090 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010): The Court has the power to sanction Farinella for this conduct pursuant to (1) its inherent power, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3) Local Bankruptcy Rule 9020-1. “Bankruptcy courts, like Article III courts, enjoy inherent power to sanction parties f ...
From In re Green, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 195, 2010 WL 346090 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2010): The Court has the power to sanction Farinella for this conduct pursuant to (1) its inherent power, (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and (3)…
Continue Reading

PSLRA — Issuance of Press Releases by Putative Lead Plaintiff’s Counsel Does Not Necessarily Mean the Suit is Lawyer Driven or that the Plaintiff Is Inadequate — District Court Discretion over Selection of Lead Counsel

From Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6463 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010): ***DeKalb and Operating Engineers argue that Cho's lawsuit is lawyer-driven because his counsel issued two press releases. The first one, sent out the day before his counsel filed the first lawsuit, announced that the Rosen Law Firm was commencing an i ...
From Zhu v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6463 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010): ***DeKalb and Operating Engineers argue that Cho’s lawsuit is lawyer-driven because his counsel issued two press releases. The first one, sent out the day…
Continue Reading
Previous391392393394395396397Next

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