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

RICO — Role of Operation-and-Management Test in Assessing Distinctiveness between Enterprise and Defendant — Mere Business Relationship between Entities ≠ Operation or Management

From Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins. Col, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17376 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2009): Florida resident John Crichton began purchasing group health insurance from Golden Rule in 1995 under a master policy offered only to members of the Federation of American Consumers and Travelers ("the Federation"), a nonprofit organization that pro ...
From Crichton v. Golden Rule Ins. Col, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17376 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2009): Florida resident John Crichton began purchasing group health insurance from Golden Rule in 1995 under a master policy offered only to members of…
Continue Reading

Motions in Limine Not Covered by Scheduling Order Calling for Pretrial Motions by Date Certain

From Royale Green Condominium Assn. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66064 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2009): Plaintiff is technically correct in asserting that the Scheduling Order ... calls for the filing of all pretrial motions not explicitly excluded by Local Rule 7.1.A.1 by or before February 16, 2009. However, motions ...
From Royale Green Condominium Assn. v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66064 (S.D. Fla. July 24, 2009): Plaintiff is technically correct in asserting that the Scheduling Order … calls for the filing of all pretrial motions not…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — State Tort Law Action Premised on Misconduct in Federal Litigation and Violation of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Not Removable under Grable

From Waris v. Ormond, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66687 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2009): This case arises out of three earlier actions, Waris v. HCR Manor Care, U.S.D.C. E.D. Pa., No. 07-cv-3344; Waris v. Keystone Health Plan East. Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, Civ. No. 05-12718; and Waris v. Frick, U.S.D.C. E.D. Pa., No. 06- ...
From Waris v. Ormond, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66687 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2009): This case arises out of three earlier actions, Waris v. HCR Manor Care, U.S.D.C. E.D. Pa., No. 07-cv-3344; Waris v. Keystone Health Plan East. Court of…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Improper Coaching of Witnesses — Use of Ethical Rules as Standard of Conduct — Reputational Injury Confers Article III Standing to Appeal Even After Monetary Sanctions Paid —Intentional Failure to Prevent Client from Intentionally Dele

From Ibarra v. Baker, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16753 (5th Cir. July 28, 2009): Mary Baker, Scott Durfee, and Frank Sanders represented Harris County, Texas, and several of its law enforcement officers in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The district court found that Baker and Sanders improperly coached defense witnesses, gave or abided false test ...
From Ibarra v. Baker, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16753 (5th Cir. July 28, 2009): Mary Baker, Scott Durfee, and Frank Sanders represented Harris County, Texas, and several of its law enforcement officers in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The…
Continue Reading

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
Previous420421422423424425426Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

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