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

Rooker-Feldman Does Not Bar Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction Until the Last Nail Is in the Coffin of the Last State Court Proceeding

The chronology in Nicholson v. Career Assessment Atlanta, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2941 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2009), was as follows: • October 5, 2007 — state court jury verdict on claim for accounting under state law for copyright profits • November 1, 2007 — federal declaratory judgment action for accounting for ...
The chronology in Nicholson v. Career Assessment Atlanta, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2941 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2009), was as follows: • October 5, 2007 — state court jury verdict on claim for accounting under state law for copyright…
Continue Reading

The Virtual Practice of Law — California Plaintiff May Recover Fees for Work of Out-of-State Lawyer Engaged by California Counsel — Everyone Practices Everywhere vs. Birbrower

From Winterrrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2899 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2009): Even at a time when the largest law firms in the United States were composed of not many more than one hundred lawyers, Judge Friendly observed that we live in an "age of increased specialization and high mobility of the bar." Sp ...
From Winterrrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2899 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2009): Even at a time when the largest law firms in the United States were composed of not many more than one hundred…
Continue Reading

Conflicts — Screening — New ABA Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2) Facilitates Lawyer Mobility by Protecting New Firm from Imputed Conflicts

Download associated file: ABA Rule Prof Conduct 1 10 a 2.pdf  The American Bar Association House of Delegates has approved a major amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2) permitting screening of lateral partners (lawyers) to avoid imputed conflicts at the new ...
Download associated file: ABA Rule Prof Conduct 1 10 a 2.pdf  The American Bar Association House of Delegates has approved a major amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 1.10(a)(2) permitting screening of lateral partners (lawyers) to avoid imputed conflicts…
Continue Reading

Third Party Beneficiary Bound by Conditions in Contract It Seeks to Enforce, Even if Conditions Stated as Promises

The automobile policy State Farm issued in State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8263 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2009) contained a commitment that the insured would maintain $250,000 in underlying coverage or be responsible for that sum before the State Farm policy attached. An additional insured argued that he was not a party ...
The automobile policy State Farm issued in State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8263 (E.D. Va. Feb. 5, 2009) contained a commitment that the insured would maintain $250,000 in underlying coverage…
Continue Reading

Important eDiscovery Sanctions Program at Fordham — Tuesday, February 24th

Download associated file: Fordham eDiscovery Sanctions Program.pdf  Professor Daniel J. Capra, the Reed Professor of Law at Fordham and the Reporter to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, has organized a stellar program on Electronic Discovery Sanctio ...
Download associated file: Fordham eDiscovery Sanctions Program.pdf  Professor Daniel J. Capra, the Reed Professor of Law at Fordham and the Reporter to the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence, has organized a stellar program on Electronic Discovery…
Continue Reading

RICO — Incurring Legal Fees ≠ Injury within § 1964(c)

Thomas v. Baca, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2394 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009): “This court has not recognized the incurment of legal fees as an injury cognizable under RICO, and we decline to do so here.” ...
Thomas v. Baca, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2394 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2009): “This court has not recognized the incurment of legal fees as an injury cognizable under RICO, and we decline to do so here.”
Continue Reading

Municipal Entities’ Immunity from RICO Extends to Municipal Employees to the Extent They Act in Their Official Capacity, Only

Two cases: • From LaFlamboy v. Landek, 587 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2008): The Village Defendants also argue that because municipal corporations cannot be held liable under RICO, see Lancaster Cnty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940 F.2d 397, 404-05 (9th Cir. 1991), Village employees escape RICO liability f ...
Two cases: • From LaFlamboy v. Landek, 587 F. Supp. 2d 914 (N.D. Ill. 2008): The Village Defendants also argue that because municipal corporations cannot be held liable under RICO, see Lancaster Cnty. Hosp. v. Antelope Valley Hosp. Dist., 940…
Continue Reading

30(b)(6) Testimony Must Satisfy the Hearsay Rule to be Admissible

30(b)(6) testimony is frequently taken from an adverse party and comprises an admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3). Not always. If not, it must otherwise satisfy hearsay and competency requirements. From Century Pac., Inc. v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 528 F. Supp. 2d 206, 215 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y. 2007):
30(b)(6) testimony is frequently taken from an adverse party and comprises an admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a)(3). Not always. If not, it must otherwise satisfy hearsay and competency requirements. From Century…
Continue Reading

RICO, Twombly and Fact Pleading

From Clark v Porcelli, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5677 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2009): The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. Instead, all that is ordinarily required is that the claimant set forth a "short and plain statement of his claim showing that ...
From Clark v Porcelli, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5677 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 27, 2009): The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally do not require a plaintiff to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. Instead,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Finally Agrees that Spoliation Sanctions are a Matter of Federal, Not State, Law

From Adkins v. Wolever, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2397 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2009) (en banc): We reheard this case en banc to resolve a choice-of-law question: Does state law control a federal court's imposition of sanctions as relief for spoliated evidence? The original panel, constrained by our earlier opinions that applied state law to determ ...
From Adkins v. Wolever, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 2397 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2009) (en banc): We reheard this case en banc to resolve a choice-of-law question: Does state law control a federal court’s imposition of sanctions as relief for…
Continue Reading
Previous432433434435436437438Next

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

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

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