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 Discovery, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e) (Grand Jury Secrecy) and 26 U.S.C. §6103 (Internal Revenue Code Tax Privilege)

From Alpert v. Riley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36612 (S.D. Tex. April 30, 2009): II. Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure A. No Secrecy Obligation on a Grand-Jury Witness The defendants argue that "grand-jury secrecy" under Rule 6(e)(2) prevents them from disclosing any information or documents that w ...
From Alpert v. Riley, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36612 (S.D. Tex. April 30, 2009): II. Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure A. No Secrecy Obligation on a Grand-Jury Witness The defendants argue that “grand-jury secrecy” under Rule…
Continue Reading

First-Filed Rule and Forum Shopping — Noerr-Pennington Baselessness = Rule 11

From CBS Interactive Inc. v. NFL Players Ass’n, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36800 (D. Minn. April 28, 2009): [First-Filed Rule and Forum Shopping] As an initial matter, the parties dispute the applicability of the "first-filed rule," which provides that "when parallel litigation has been instituted in separate courts," pri ...
From CBS Interactive Inc. v. NFL Players Ass’n, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36800 (D. Minn. April 28, 2009): [First-Filed Rule and Forum Shopping] As an initial matter, the parties dispute the applicability of the “first-filed rule,” which provides that…
Continue Reading

Statute of Limitations — Complaint Dismissed without Prejudice Does Not Toll Limitations Period as a Matter of Federal Law

From Kucher v. Alternative Treatment Center of Paterson, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36737 (E.D.N.Y. March 27, 2009): In the event of a dismissal without prejudice, the limitations period in this case would be considered to have expired in 2008 [for one claim] since such a dismissal negates the tolling effected by t ...
From Kucher v. Alternative Treatment Center of Paterson, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36737 (E.D.N.Y. March 27, 2009): In the event of a dismissal without prejudice, the limitations period in this case would be considered to have expired in 2008…
Continue Reading

Expert Whose Testimony Is to Be Based on Evidence at Trial Per Rule 703 Is Properly Exempted from Rule 615(3) Sequestration Order

From United States v. Abdallah, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36172 (S.D. Tex. April 29, 2009): [T]he Abdallahs argue that this court erred by failing to exclude Patterson from the courtroom, in violation of Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 615 directs that upon a party's request or upon its own motion "the court shall order witne ...
From United States v. Abdallah, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36172 (S.D. Tex. April 29, 2009): [T]he Abdallahs argue that this court erred by failing to exclude Patterson from the courtroom, in violation of Rule 615 of the Federal Rules of…
Continue Reading

“Some Recollection” of Email Sufficient to Authenticate It

From Baker v. Chrysler, 179 Ohio App. 3d 351, 2008 Ohio 6032, 901 N.E.2d 875 (2008): Donald Anspaugh authenticated exhibit 39 — an e-mail from his law partner to Bill Chrysler, in which he was copied — when he stated that he had "some recollection" of seeing it and he "had to conclude" that the printout was a copy of the e-mail he had ...
From Baker v. Chrysler, 179 Ohio App. 3d 351, 2008 Ohio 6032, 901 N.E.2d 875 (2008): Donald Anspaugh authenticated exhibit 39 — an e-mail from his law partner to Bill Chrysler, in which he was copied — when he stated…
Continue Reading

RICO: Parent + Subsidiaries + “Something More” = Association-in-Fact Enterprise

From In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18227 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2009): Relying on the text of § 1962(c), courts have consistently held that "the 'person' must be a separate and distinct entity from the 'enterprise.'" Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., Inc.,
From In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg. Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18227 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2009): Relying on the text of § 1962(c), courts have consistently held that “the ‘person’ must be a separate…
Continue Reading

SLUSA Does Not Require Dismissal of Entire Action Simply Because Some Claims Are Precluded

From In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 553 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2009): This appeal presents the question whether SLUSA [the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)] requires the dismissal of the entire action when the action includes some state law class action claims that clearly may not be maintaine ...
From In re Lord Abbett Mut. Funds Fee Litig., 553 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2009): This appeal presents the question whether SLUSA [the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)] requires the dismissal of the entire…
Continue Reading

Law Firm Must Act with Bad Faith Independent of Its Partner to Warrant Inherent Power Sanctions Against Firm

From Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs. v. Scivantage, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8246 (2d Cir. April 21, 2009): [Law Firm Must Act with Bad Faith Independent of Partner’s, in Order to Warrant Inherent Power Sanctions Against the Firm] The district court found that Dorsey's [the law firm’s] main purpose in filing a Rule 41 volunt ...
From Wolters Kluwer Fin. Servs. v. Scivantage, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8246 (2d Cir. April 21, 2009): [Law Firm Must Act with Bad Faith Independent of Partner’s, in Order to Warrant Inherent Power Sanctions Against the Firm] The district court…
Continue Reading

Work Product Protection Waived By Creating It in Plain Sight of Opponent

From Pahl v. Robinson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34668 (M.D. Ga. April 22, 2009): On January 14, 2008, Defendant was driving his Crown Victoria on Georgia 137 when he struck Plaintiff Paul Pahl, who was riding a bicycle. Defendant's counsel hired videographers and photographers to videotape and photograph the collision scene on January 13 an ...
From Pahl v. Robinson, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34668 (M.D. Ga. April 22, 2009): On January 14, 2008, Defendant was driving his Crown Victoria on Georgia 137 when he struck Plaintiff Paul Pahl, who was riding a bicycle. Defendant’s counsel…
Continue Reading

When Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees Are an Element of Damages, Defendant Has a Seventh Amendment Right to a Jury Trial to Quantify Them, Unless Summary Judgment Is Appropriate

From J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8398 (10th Cir. April 23, 2009): J.R. Simplot Company… sued Chevron Pipeline Company… for failure to defend and indemnify Simplot pursuant to two sales agreements. Chevron denied its liability and asserted counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in ...
From J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chevron Pipeline Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8398 (10th Cir. April 23, 2009): J.R. Simplot Company… sued Chevron Pipeline Company… for failure to defend and indemnify Simplot pursuant to two sales agreements. Chevron denied its…
Continue Reading
Previous424425426427428429430Next

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(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

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