Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

Rule 15(a)(1)(B) will be amended as of December 1, 2009, to end the current ability of a party to amend a complaint at any time after dismissal motion has been filed. The amendment will be required within 21 days after service of a motion to dismiss, for a more definite statement or to strike. Rule 15(a)(1)(B) — Amending Pleading After Di ...
Rule 15(a)(1)(B) will be amended as of December 1, 2009, to end the current ability of a party to amend a complaint at any time after dismissal motion has been filed. The amendment will be required within 21 days after…
From Rady Children's Hospital v. Service Employees International Union, Local 2028, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109828 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2008): It was not objectively reasonable for Plaintiff's counsel to refile its claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The Court previously dismissed these exact same claims and even w ...
From Rady Children’s Hospital v. Service Employees International Union, Local 2028, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109828 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2008): It was not objectively reasonable for Plaintiff’s counsel to refile its claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief.…
From Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19642 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009): [Rule 26(g) — Substantial Justification and General Objections.] Rule 26(g) provides that an attorney will be sanctioned for noncompliance with that rule "[i]f without substantial justification a certification ...
From Grider v. Keystone Health Plan Central, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19642 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2009): [Rule 26(g) — Substantial Justification and General Objections.] Rule 26(g) provides that an attorney will be sanctioned for noncompliance with that rule…
A new article prepared for the May 2010 Duke Conference being held by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference has been posted on the Recent Articles page. It is focused primarily on electronic discovery problems not addressed by current rules and proposing solutions. It also suggests that, if one takes Tw ...
A new article prepared for the May 2010 Duke Conference being held by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference has been posted on the Recent Articles page. It is focused primarily on…
Six years ago, in In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, 323 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2003), a divided panel of the Second Circuit held that district courts imposing sua sponte sanctions under Rule 11 were required to make a finding of subjective bad faith before imposing sanctions. It is my view that the dissenting opinion of Judge Underhill was correct and that the holding ...
Six years ago, in In re Pennie & Edmonds LLP, 323 F.3d 86 (2d Cir. 2003), a divided panel of the Second Circuit held that district courts imposing sua sponte sanctions under Rule 11 were required to make a finding…
From Biggs v. Eaglewood Mortgage LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62275 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2009): In their Amended Complaint, the Biggs asserted that in 2004, Countrywide, through its agents and/or co-conspirators, made false statements to induce them to execute loan documents converting their 5.25% fixed-rate home mortgage with Chase Manhattan Mo ...
From Biggs v. Eaglewood Mortgage LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62275 (D. Md. Jan. 5, 2009): In their Amended Complaint, the Biggs asserted that in 2004, Countrywide, through its agents and/or co-conspirators, made false statements to induce them to execute…
From Johnson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79452 (D. Colo. Sept. 2, 2009): Having carefully considered the issue, this Court believes that, were the Colorado Supreme Court to consider the question, it would join the majority of jurisdictions that decline t[o] recognize a standalone tort claim for spoliation of evi ...
From Johnson v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79452 (D. Colo. Sept. 2, 2009): Having carefully considered the issue, this Court believes that, were the Colorado Supreme Court to consider the question, it would join the…
From Goss v. Tommy Burney Homes, Inc., 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 604 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2009): The Gosses contend that the trial court erred in admitting the emails because TBH failed to prove that Ms. Barnes had a business duty to record or transmit the communications in question. We disagree. In laying the foundation for introducing ...
From Goss v. Tommy Burney Homes, Inc., 2009 Tenn. App. LEXIS 604 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2009): The Gosses contend that the trial court erred in admitting the emails because TBH failed to prove that Ms. Barnes had a…
From United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350, 1358-59 (D.C. Cir. 2008): Next, Hemphill's challenge to the government's summary evidence is groundless. *** Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows a party to introduce a chart summarizing "[t]he contents of voluminous writings . . . which cannot conveniently be examined in ...
From United States v. Hemphill, 514 F.3d 1350, 1358-59 (D.C. Cir. 2008): Next, Hemphill’s challenge to the government’s summary evidence is groundless. *** Rule 1006 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows a party to introduce a chart summarizing “[t]he…
From Lawrence v. Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2009): Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hear "any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11," upon referral by a district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) (2006). "'Arising under' proceedings are matt ...
From Lawrence v. Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2009): Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction to hear “any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case…

Recent Posts

Archives