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

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

RICO — “Sole Proprietorship” Law Firm as RICO Enterprise, Lawyer as RICO Defendant

From Wade v. Gaither, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17850 (D. Utah Mar. 2, 2009): *** To establish liability under § 1962(c), "one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a 'person'; and (2) an 'enterprise' that is not simply the 'person' referred to by a different name." Cedric Kushner Promotions, Ltd. v. King,
From Wade v. Gaither, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17850 (D. Utah Mar. 2, 2009): *** To establish liability under § 1962(c), “one must allege and prove the existence of two distinct entities: (1) a ‘person’; and (2) an ‘enterprise’ that…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Standards for Interlocutory Review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) of Class Certification Orders

From Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2009): Interlocutory review of a district court's class certification order is generally appropriate in three types of cases. The first such category is comprised of "death knell cases," which refers to situations in which a questionable class certification order is likely to force ...
From Vallario v. Vandehey, 554 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2009): Interlocutory review of a district court’s class certification order is generally appropriate in three types of cases. The first such category is comprised of “death knell cases,” which refers to…
Continue Reading

Federal Arbitration Act — “Manifest Disregard” After Hall Street — Circuit Split — Fifth Circuit Summary

From Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc. v. Bacon, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4543 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009): The question before us now is whether, under the FAA, manifest disregard of the law remains valid, as an independent ground for vacatur, after Hall Street. The answer seems clear. Hall Street unequivocally held that the statutory ...
From Citigroup Global Mkts. Inc. v. Bacon, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4543 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2009): The question before us now is whether, under the FAA, manifest disregard of the law remains valid, as an independent ground for vacatur,…
Continue Reading
Previous433434435436437438439Next

Recent Posts

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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