Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Complex Lit Blog

From Singleton v. Grade A Market, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31026 (D. Conn. April 13, 2009): The precise question presented in this case -- whether a clause in a lease agreement, which clause requires the parties to the lease to settle a rent dispute through appraisal, is rendered void by the unavailability of appraisers with the exact q ...
From Singleton v. Grade A Market, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31026 (D. Conn. April 13, 2009): The precise question presented in this case — whether a clause in a lease agreement, which clause requires the parties to the lease…
In United States v. Maxxam, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30743 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2009), the plaintiff claimed that certain evidence in the possession of one defendant was spoliated by a consultant and that the spoliation was attributable to that defendant’s counsel. The same counsel also jointly represented two other defendants (the corporate parent and g ...
In United States v. Maxxam, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30743 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2009), the plaintiff claimed that certain evidence in the possession of one defendant was spoliated by a consultant and that the spoliation was attributable to…
From United States v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30485 (E.D.N.Y. April 9, 2009): A district court unquestionably has the authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to enjoin proceedings that threaten to interfere with its jurisdiction over a pending criminal case. *** Determining whether to enjoin a ...
From United States v. Fin. Indus. Reg. Auth., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30485 (E.D.N.Y. April 9, 2009): A district court unquestionably has the authority under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to enjoin proceedings that threaten to interfere…
From McQueen-Starling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23266 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009): In Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008), the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether parties could supplement by contract the statutory grounds for vacating an arbitration award provided in th ...
From McQueen-Starling v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23266 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2009): In Hall Street Assocs., LLC v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008), the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether parties could supplement by…
From Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6429 (3d Cir. Mar. 26, 2009): The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) confers jurisdiction on federal courts over certain class actions in which any defendant and any class member are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). CAFA further enables any defendan ...
From Kaufman v. Allstate N.J. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6429 (3d Cir. Mar. 26, 2009): The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) confers jurisdiction on federal courts over certain class actions in which any defendant and any…
From Myrus Hack, LLC v. McDonald’s Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25765 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2009): The Supreme Court teaches that "mail fraud requires two elements — (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to perform specified fraudulent acts), and (2) use of the mail for the purpose of executing, or attempting to e ...
From Myrus Hack, LLC v. McDonald’s Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25765 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2009): The Supreme Court teaches that “mail fraud requires two elements — (1) having devised or intending to devise a scheme to defraud (or to…
From Grant v. Kamehameha Schools, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26196 (D. Haw. Mar. 30, 2009): Hawaii Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) provides: A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness except where: (1) the testimony relates to an unconteste ...
From Grant v. Kamehameha Schools, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26196 (D. Haw. Mar. 30, 2009): Hawaii Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7(a) provides: A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be…
From In re Central European Indus. Dev. Co., 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 639 (N.D. Cal. Bankr. Jan. 13, 2009): [I]n the context of [Bankruptcy] Rule 9011 sanctions, courts generally disfavor sanctioning a party for its counsel's misconduct unless the party itself is somehow implicated. Shepherd v. Am. Broad. Companies, Inc., 62 F.3d 1469, ...
From In re Central European Indus. Dev. Co., 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 639 (N.D. Cal. Bankr. Jan. 13, 2009): [I]n the context of [Bankruptcy] Rule 9011 sanctions, courts generally disfavor sanctioning a party for its counsel’s misconduct unless the party itself…
From United States v. Johnston, , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6981 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2009): We also reject Johnston's argument that the experts improperly testified to legal conclusions. Although experts may not testify to legal conclusions, "testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it ...
From United States v. Johnston, , 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 6981 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2009): We also reject Johnston’s argument that the experts improperly testified to legal conclusions. Although experts may not testify to legal conclusions, “testimony in the…
From Madison Holdings, LLC v. Punch Int’l, NV, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27406 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009): Plaintiffs also object to documents attached to Maes' executed declaration filed on June 30, 2008. Specifically, Plaintiffs object to an email from Vandekerckhove to Maes dated July 14, 2004, a certified translation of the email, and ...
From Madison Holdings, LLC v. Punch Int’l, NV, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27406 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009): Plaintiffs also object to documents attached to Maes’ executed declaration filed on June 30, 2008. Specifically, Plaintiffs object to an email from…

Recent Posts

Archives