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

New York Judiciary Law § 487 Not Limited to Attorney Misconduct in Courts within the State of New York — Second Circuit Limitation Rejected by Bronx Supreme

From Cinao v. Reers, 2010 NY Slip Op 20006, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 30 (Jan. 14, 2010): Judiciary Law § 487 "descends from the first Statute of Westminster, which was adopted by the Parliament summoned by King Edward I of England in 1275." (See Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 12 [2009].) The statute reads in its entiret ...
From Cinao v. Reers, 2010 NY Slip Op 20006, 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 30 (Jan. 14, 2010): Judiciary Law § 487 “descends from the first Statute of Westminster, which was adopted by the Parliament summoned by King Edward I of…
Continue Reading

Electronic Spoliation — Purpose and Limitations of Rule 37(e)

From Tech. Sales Assoc’s, Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22431 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009): Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) states as follows: (e) Failure to Produce Electronically Stored Information. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party fo ...
From Tech. Sales Assoc’s, Inc. v. Ohio Star Forge Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22431 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2009): Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) states as follows: (e) Failure to Produce Electronically Stored Information. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court…
Continue Reading

Tests for Finding Spoliation and Determining Sanctions — Third Circuit

From Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118342 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2009): Generally, to determine spoliation of evidence, four factors must be found: (1) the evidence in question must be within the party's control; (2) it must appear that there has been actual suppression or withholding of the evidence; (3) the evidence de ...
From Bensel v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118342 (D.N.J. Dec. 17, 2009): Generally, to determine spoliation of evidence, four factors must be found: (1) the evidence in question must be within the party’s control; (2) it must…
Continue Reading

Pre-Removal State Court Sanction Treated as if Entered by Federal District Court — “Reconsideration” Denied — Law of the Case Doctrine (Good Quote)

The state court in Paschen v. Estate of McDaniel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1066 (D. Idaho Jan. 7, 2010), entered a monetary sanction in the amount of $7,955 — for attorneys' fees — pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11, prior to removal. The sanctioned party moved the federal district court for reconsideration after removal: Up ...
The state court in Paschen v. Estate of McDaniel, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1066 (D. Idaho Jan. 7, 2010), entered a monetary sanction in the amount of $7,955 — for attorneys’ fees — pursuant to Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure…
Continue Reading

RICO — Activities of Enterprise, Not Each Predicate Act, Must Affect Interstate Commerce

From Aguilar v. Mega Lighting, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28348 (C.D. Cal. April 6, 2009): RICO grants jurisdiction over "any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect[] interstate or foreign commerce," which is used for "a pattern of racketeering activity." 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). RICO requires that the activities of t ...
From Aguilar v. Mega Lighting, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28348 (C.D. Cal. April 6, 2009): RICO grants jurisdiction over “any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect[] interstate or foreign commerce,” which is used for “a pattern…
Continue Reading

To Determine a “Mass Action” within CAFA, the Court Does Not Pierce Corporations and Partnerships to Count Beneficial Owners, Not Even in Derivative Actions

From Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120533 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30/Dec. 23, 2009): Plaintiffs in numerous actions consolidated by this Court for pretrial proceedings assert claims for financial losses allegedly arising from the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff. Four of those cases were originally fil ...
From Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120533 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30/Dec. 23, 2009): Plaintiffs in numerous actions consolidated by this Court for pretrial proceedings assert claims for financial losses allegedly arising from the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction over State Law Legal Malpractice Claim that Raises a Substantial, Contested Question of Patent Law that Congress Intended for Resolution in Federal Court

From Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc. v. Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, P.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119349 (D. Minn. Dec. 22, 2009): The Federal Circuit has held that federal courts have jurisdiction over malpractice actions alleging sub-standard legal representation in patent prosecution and litigation suits if "the patent in ...
From Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc. v. Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen, P.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119349 (D. Minn. Dec. 22, 2009): The Federal Circuit has held that federal courts have jurisdiction over malpractice actions alleging sub-standard legal representation in…
Continue Reading

Advising Client to Pursue Litigation in Allegedly “Biased” Court Does Not Constitute Legal Malpractice — Conflict of Interest States No Claim Absent Damages

From Stonewell Corp. v. Jerseysearch Title Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1107 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2010): The Court is not persuaded by Stonewell's contention that Dollinger was negligent in advising Stonewell to proceed in the "bias[ed] forum" of the Middle District of Florida instead of the more "impartial" forum of the New York district c ...
From Stonewell Corp. v. Jerseysearch Title Servs., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1107 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2010): The Court is not persuaded by Stonewell’s contention that Dollinger was negligent in advising Stonewell to proceed in the “bias[ed] forum” of the Middle…
Continue Reading

Implied Waiver of the Attorney-Client Privilege — Assertion of Good Faith Defense and Mention of Consultation with Counsel

From Henry v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112025 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 24, 2008): Magistrate Judge Pepe did *** find that statements by the defendants in their Good Faith Motion provided what he called the "plus factor" that pushed the defendants' assertions into an area of implied waiver. Specifically, in their Good Faith Moti ...
From Henry v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112025 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 24, 2008): Magistrate Judge Pepe did *** find that statements by the defendants in their Good Faith Motion provided what he called the “plus factor” that…
Continue Reading

What Constitute “Substantial Grounds for Difference of Opinion” for Purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) — Second Circuit Standards

From U.S. ex rel Colucci v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117587 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009): Courts have found substantial ground for difference of opinion where there is conflicting authority on the issue or the issue is particularly difficult and one of first impression in the Second Circuit. Klinqhoffer, 921 F.2d ...
From U.S. ex rel Colucci v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117587 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2009): Courts have found substantial ground for difference of opinion where there is conflicting authority on the issue or the issue is…
Continue Reading
Previous395396397398399400401Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

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