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

Civil Contempt Standards — Order Directed at Non-Party Corporate Employer and Party Employees — Contempt for Failure to Apprise Supervisors of Order and Obtain Corporate Enforcement — Good Faith and Substantial Compliance No Defense to Contempt

From Roslies-Perez v. Superior Forestry Serv., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65112 (M.D. Tenn. July 28, 2009): Plaintiffs, temporary foreign guestworkers with H-2B visas, filed this action as a collective action against the Defendants: Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and several of its owners and managers seeking injunctive relief and bac ...
From Roslies-Perez v. Superior Forestry Serv., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65112 (M.D. Tenn. July 28, 2009): Plaintiffs, temporary foreign guestworkers with H-2B visas, filed this action as a collective action against the Defendants: Superior Forestry Services, Inc. and several…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege and Common Interest (Joint Defense) Doctrine — New York vs. Federal Law — Contract as Basis of Common Legal Interest — Lawyer Communications with Non-Client Protected — Oral vs. Written Common Interest Agreement

From HSH Nordbank AG v. Swerdlow, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63711 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009): A. Overview of Attorney-Client Privilege Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel where such communications are made for the purpose of providing or obtaining ...
From HSH Nordbank AG v. Swerdlow, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63711 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009): A. Overview of Attorney-Client Privilege Under New York law, the attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between client and counsel where such communications are made for…
Continue Reading

A Brief Glimpse into Another World

From United States v. Hutchinson, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16776 (10th Cir. July 27, 2009): Denver's Alpine Rose Motel was something of a "drive-thru" crack market. Customers needed only to pull their cars into the parking lot to receive window-side service from one of the motel's resident drug runners. A runner would take the customer's or ...
From United States v. Hutchinson, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16776 (10th Cir. July 27, 2009): Denver’s Alpine Rose Motel was something of a “drive-thru” crack market. Customers needed only to pull their cars into the parking lot to receive window-side…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication — Hard Copies of Emails Prima Facie Authenticated Circumstantially by being Found in Person’s Residence and Bearing His Name

From United States v. Vaghari, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64793 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2009): Defendants argue that the emails that form the basis of Overt Acts 1-4, 10-11, 15, 17, 26, 30, and 35-36 cannot be properly authenticated and therefore may not be introduced into evidence. *** According to defendants, as "the government has no witness who ...
From United States v. Vaghari, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64793 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2009): Defendants argue that the emails that form the basis of Overt Acts 1-4, 10-11, 15, 17, 26, 30, and 35-36 cannot be properly authenticated and…
Continue Reading

Website Summaries of Judicially-Noticeable Government Documents Satisfy 803(17)

From Global Computere Enters. v. United States, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 259 (Fed. Cl. May 29, 2009): QSS also argues that commercially obtained materials purporting to be excerpts from federal financial IT procurements are inadmissible hearsay to which no exception applies. *** During oral argument, QSS's counsel stated: ...
From Global Computere Enters. v. United States, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 259 (Fed. Cl. May 29, 2009): QSS also argues that commercially obtained materials purporting to be excerpts from federal financial IT procurements are inadmissible hearsay to which no exception…
Continue Reading

Counsel’s Undisclosed Change of Flight Plans, Requiring Opponent to Split Deposition into Two Days, Constitutes “Impeding, Delaying, or Frustrating” Deposition within Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(2), Triggering Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

From Campos v. MTD Prods., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63846 (M.D. Tenn. July 24, 2009): While the record does not indicate that [defense counsel] acted intentionally or maliciously ..., he was careless and discourteous. Most notably, when his plans changed and he needed to change his flight out of San Antonio, [he] apparently made no ...
From Campos v. MTD Prods., Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63846 (M.D. Tenn. July 24, 2009): While the record does not indicate that [defense counsel] acted intentionally or maliciously …, he was careless and discourteous. Most notably, when his plans…
Continue Reading

Less Stringent Review Accorded Pro Se Complaint Even After Twombly and Iqbal — But Not When Filed by Disbarred Lawyer

From Fagan v. United States District Court, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63629 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009): Even after Twombly and Iqbal, when reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court must use less stringent standards than if the complaint had been drafted by counsel and must construe a pro se complaint liberally. See ...
From Fagan v. United States District Court, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63629 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009): Even after Twombly and Iqbal, when reviewing a pro se complaint, the Court must use less stringent standards than if the complaint had been…
Continue Reading

Failure to Afford 21 Days’ Notice of Rule 11 Motion Requires Denial — Warning Letter Is No Substitute for a Motion

From Wild Game NG, LLC v. Wong’s Int’l (USA) Corp., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16257 (9th Cir. June 12, 2009): Party-initiated sanctions under Rule 11 require strict compliance with the 21-day safe harbor provision of Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). Informal warnings threatening to seek Rule 11 sanctions are not enough, because th ...
From Wild Game NG, LLC v. Wong’s Int’l (USA) Corp., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16257 (9th Cir. June 12, 2009): Party-initiated sanctions under Rule 11 require strict compliance with the 21-day safe harbor provision of Rule 11. See Fed. R.…
Continue Reading

In Awarding Statutory Attorneys’ Fees, Court May Consider that Verdict was Substantially Less than Pretrial Settlement Offer in Assessing Success

From Lohman v. Borough, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16245 (3d Cir. July 23, 2009): The jury awarded Lohman $ 12,205.00 in lost wages and nominal damages, after finding Appellees liable on one of Lohman's three First Amendment retaliation claims. Lohman contends that the District Court improperly considered settlement negotiations between the ...
From Lohman v. Borough, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16245 (3d Cir. July 23, 2009): The jury awarded Lohman $ 12,205.00 in lost wages and nominal damages, after finding Appellees liable on one of Lohman’s three First Amendment retaliation claims. Lohman…
Continue Reading

Electronic Discovery — Sweeping Requests for Metadata as a Waste of Time and Money

From Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52551, at *7 (D. Mass. June 22, 2009): The court's concern over the goal of discovery is also relevant to the parties' dispute over metadata.... [T]he court believes the parties must be concerned with uncovering admissible evidence. The Shareholders seek all of the metadata a ...
From Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52551, at *7 (D. Mass. June 22, 2009): The court’s concern over the goal of discovery is also relevant to the parties’ dispute over metadata…. [T]he court believes the…
Continue Reading
Previous415416417418419420421Next

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