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

Sanctions — Rule 11 Sanctions Impermissible for Oral Misstatement that Does Not Advocate Position from Prior Written Filing

From Columbia Venture LLC v. FEMA, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6926 (4th Cir. April 3, 2009): [Extemporaneous Oral Advocacy Unrelated to Filing Not Sanctionable Under Rule 11] Rule 11 … severely limits a court's ability to sanction counsel for oral statements. It permits a court to impose sanctions only on the basis of a false ...
From Columbia Venture LLC v. FEMA, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6926 (4th Cir. April 3, 2009): [Extemporaneous Oral Advocacy Unrelated to Filing Not Sanctionable Under Rule 11] Rule 11 … severely limits a court’s ability to sanction counsel for oral…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Secondary Evidence Insufficient — Prejudice from Destruction of Interview Notes Not Remedied by Existence of Typewritten Summaries

From Reed v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35384 (D. Ariz. April 27, 2009), a claim by a returning veteran for violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA") for, among other things, discriminating against her because of her military service and discharging her within one year of her re-employmen ...
From Reed v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35384 (D. Ariz. April 27, 2009), a claim by a returning veteran for violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) for, among other things,…
Continue Reading

RICO — Speculative Injury Insufficient to Sustain Claim

From Circiello v. Alfano, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37795 (D. Mass. May 4, 2009): The injury Circiello claims to have suffered is the lost opportunity to have realized a $ 10 million award against Alfano for the wrongful death of her father. Circiello offers no explanation of the basis for the $ 10 million figure. Moreover, she concedes th ...
From Circiello v. Alfano, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37795 (D. Mass. May 4, 2009): The injury Circiello claims to have suffered is the lost opportunity to have realized a $ 10 million award against Alfano for the wrongful death of…
Continue Reading

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
Previous425426427428429430431Next

Recent Posts

Patently Frivolous RICO Complaint Fails to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — Subject to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal — Abuse of Discretion Review Is “More Exacting” When Judge is “Accuser, Fact Finder and Sentencing Judge All in One” — Client Responsible for Her Lawyer’s Discovery Defalcations — No Need for Evidentiary Hearing When Sanctions Based Entirely on an Established Record — Lesser Sanctions Reasonably Determined to be Ineffective Given Record of Repeated Discovery Abuses

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Fabrication of Evidence and Lying about It to the Court — 2-Part Test for Dismissal Sanction (Eleventh Circuit) — Whether Fraud on Court Was Committed for the Court, Not a Jury

New York Law Firm That Advised Florida Resident for Years Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Florida, Thus Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in Florida — Court Cannot Amend Protective Order Following Dismissal of Case Unless the Order Retains Jurisdiction Post-Dismissal — Parties Can Enforce Stipulated Protective Order Post-Dismissal Through Breach of Contract Action

Rule 37(e)/Spoliation — “Intent to Deprive” Determined under the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard — Court May Make Determination Or Allow Jury to Do So — Lesser “Culpable Conduct” Standard of Residential Funding Continues to Apply in Second Circuit Outside ESI Context — Once Judge Has Definitively Ruled on the Record Denying A Requested Instruction, Counsel Is Not Required to Object to the Charge Again at Trial to Preserve Issue for Appeal

Rule 11 (9011) and Inherent Power Sanctions for “Unapologetic [Refusal to Apologize] Defiance” of Court’s Rules and Orders — Advising Client to Take Steps That Same Judge Had Told Lawyer Were Improper in Prior Case — Obstinate Recidivism — Silence upon Withdrawal of Motion As Rule 11 (9011) Violation (Noted But Not Addressed on Appeal)

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

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