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

Experts — Second Report Not “Supplemental” within Rule 26(e)(1), Just Untimely

From Welch v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21417 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2009): Plaintiffs' claim that Dr. Seberhagen's new report is merely a supplement rings hollow. Rule 26(e) provides that a party must supplement or correct a disclosure or response "if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response i ...
From Welch v. Eli Lilly & Co. , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21417 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2009): Plaintiffs’ claim that Dr. Seberhagen’s new report is merely a supplement rings hollow. Rule 26(e) provides that a party must supplement or…
Continue Reading

RICO — Corporation + Subsidiaries + Respective Officers/Employees ≠ Enterprise

From Cardinal Health Solutions, Inc. v. Valley Baptist Med. Ctr., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3909 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2009)): Defendants allege that "Cardinal Health, Inc., Cardinal Health Solutions, Inc., Cardinal Health 101, Inc., Cardinal Health 109, Inc., Cardinal Health 303, Inc., Cardinal Distribution and their officers, agents and emplo ...
From Cardinal Health Solutions, Inc. v. Valley Baptist Med. Ctr., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3909 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2009)): Defendants allege that “Cardinal Health, Inc., Cardinal Health Solutions, Inc., Cardinal Health 101, Inc., Cardinal Health 109, Inc., Cardinal Health…
Continue Reading

Truth as an Affirmative Defense to Tortious Interference — Not in Virginia or North Carolina

From Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 593 F.Supp.2d 840 (E.D. Va. 2008): The parties agree that whether "truth" can serve as an affirmative defense to tortious interference would present an issue of first impression in Virginia. In support of its Motion, Smithfield primarily relies on the ...
From Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union, 593 F.Supp.2d 840 (E.D. Va. 2008): The parties agree that whether “truth” can serve as an affirmative defense to tortious interference would present an issue of first impression…
Continue Reading

Res Judicata (Merger) Not a Meritorious Defense Where Parties Agree to Claim-Splitting

From Ex-Im Bank of U.S. v. Advanced Polymer Sciences, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18855 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 11, 2009) (applying Ohio law): "Res judicata extinguishes 'all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part or [sic] the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the act ...
From Ex-Im Bank of U.S. v. Advanced Polymer Sciences, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18855 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 11, 2009) (applying Ohio law): “Res judicata extinguishes ‘all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all…
Continue Reading

Special Masters and E-Discovery

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and Jonathan M. Redgrave have co-authored an extremely useful article, Special Masters and E-Discovery: The Intersection of Two Recent Revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 347 (2008). In addition to a scholarly exposition of t ...
Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and Jonathan M. Redgrave have co-authored an extremely useful article, Special Masters and E-Discovery: The Intersection of Two Recent Revisions to the Federal…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Place “at Issue” Advice of Plaintiff’s Counsel, Which Is Relevant on the Issue of Plaintiff’s Reasonable Reliance

From Morande Auto. Group, Inc. v. Metropolitan Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19804 (D. Conn. Mar. 12, 2009): According to Morande's Fourth Amended Complaint, Morande contracted with the General American defendants for services relating to the implementation of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"). Although the General American ...
From Morande Auto. Group, Inc. v. Metropolitan Group, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19804 (D. Conn. Mar. 12, 2009): According to Morande’s Fourth Amended Complaint, Morande contracted with the General American defendants for services relating to the implementation of an…
Continue Reading

Civility with Teeth — Inherent Power Sanctions for Failing to Inform Law Firm Defendants of Claim Before Suit — Statutorily-Authorized Fees Withheld

The plaintiff in Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5037 (11th Cir. Mar. 3, 2009), was a paralegal suing her former law firm and its partners for failure to pay overtime required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, under which a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to an award of some reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. ...
The plaintiff in Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5037 (11th Cir. Mar. 3, 2009), was a paralegal suing her former law firm and its partners for failure to pay overtime required by the Fair…
Continue Reading

Removal — State Court Pre-Suit Discovery Proceeding Not Removable Based on Diversity

From In re Enable Commerce, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18019 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2009), a proceeding for pre-suit discovery brought by Petitioner Enable pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202: [Prospective Defendant] United maintains that Enable's petition is removable based on diversity jurisdiction. The merit of United's positi ...
From In re Enable Commerce, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18019 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2009), a proceeding for pre-suit discovery brought by Petitioner Enable pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202: [Prospective Defendant] United maintains that Enable’s petition…
Continue Reading
Previous430431432433434435436Next

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