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

Federal Arbitration Act — Court Must Look Through the Arbitration Clause to Ascertain Whether Underlying Dispute Confers Federal Jurisdiction — No Federal Jurisdiction Conferred by Counterclaim

From Vaden v. Discover Bank, No. 07-773, 2009 U.S. 1781 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009): [No Federal Jurisdiction from Counterclaim.] A complaint purporting to rest on state law, we have recognized, can be recharacterized as one "arising under" federal law if the law governing the complaint is exclusively federal. See Beneficial Nat. Bank ...
From Vaden v. Discover Bank, No. 07-773, 2009 U.S. 1781 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2009): [No Federal Jurisdiction from Counterclaim.] A complaint purporting to rest on state law, we have recognized, can be recharacterized as one “arising under” federal law if…
Continue Reading

Both Adverse Inference and Tort Claim of Spoliation Available for Same Act in New Jersey — Duplicative Recovery Barred

From Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc., 2009 N.J. LEXIS 1797 (Dec. 16, 2008): The matter now before us well illustrates the apparent confusion that has resulted from our discussion in Rosenblit [v. Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391 (2001)] about the relationship between the time when an act of spoliation is discovered and the appropr ...
From Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc., 2009 N.J. LEXIS 1797 (Dec. 16, 2008): The matter now before us well illustrates the apparent confusion that has resulted from our discussion in Rosenblit [v. Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391 (2001)] about the relationship…
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility — Emails Produced in Discovery Are Sufficiently Authenticated by Fact of Production when Offered by Adverse Party But Not by Producing Party

Two cases: Case No. 1. Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 225 (Ga. App. Mar. 3, 2009) (a litigation involving multiple related cases): The facilities [i.e., the defendants in this case] claim that the court erred in sustaining [plaintiff] Synertx's objections to evidence attached to their res ...
Two cases: Case No. 1. Eastview Healthcare, LLC v. Synertx, Inc., 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 225 (Ga. App. Mar. 3, 2009) (a litigation involving multiple related cases): The facilities [i.e., the defendants in this case] claim that the court erred…
Continue Reading

Amicus Curiae — New Arguments and Issues of First Impression Raised by Amici Rather Than Parties Disregarded

From Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3755 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2009): The amici on behalf of Summit contend that the Secretary could not lawfully apply the multi-employer worksite policy without first adopting it through the informal rulemaking process of the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. § 553. ...
From Solis v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3755 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2009): The amici on behalf of Summit contend that the Secretary could not lawfully apply the multi-employer worksite policy without first adopting it through the…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Offender’s Ability to Pay Irrelevant under 18 U.S.C. § 1927, Unlike Rule 11

From Shales v. General Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 330, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4237 (7th Cir. Feb. 27, 2009): Banks's principal argument is that Rule 11 is not a pure fee-shifting statute, so ability to pay should be taken into account. This is true as far as it goes. "A sanction imposed under this rule must be lim ...
From Shales v. General Chauffeurs, Sales Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 330, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4237 (7th Cir. Feb. 27, 2009): Banks’s principal argument is that Rule 11 is not a pure fee-shifting statute, so ability to pay…
Continue Reading

Court Filing Fees and Contingent Future Losses ≠ RICO Injury

From Izenberg v. ETS Servs., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (C.D. Cal. 2008): Plaintiffs must … plead a concrete financial loss. See Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1481. Plaintiffs allege that they have "been damaged in having to hire attorneys before bringing this action and [in] bring[ing] this action . . . and will have to incur attorneys['] f ...
From Izenberg v. ETS Servs., 589 F. Supp. 2d 1193 (C.D. Cal. 2008): Plaintiffs must … plead a concrete financial loss. See Forsyth, 114 F.3d at 1481. Plaintiffs allege that they have “been damaged in having to hire attorneys before…
Continue Reading

Creation of a False Document, as Opposed to Destruction or Alteration of and Existing Document, Does Not State a Tort Claim of Spoliation in Ohio

From Williams v. Continental Express Co., 2008 Ohio 5312, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4464 (Ohio App. Oct. 14, 2008): [T]he Williams argue that the trial court erred by determining that a spoliation claim requires an allegation of destruction or alteration of an already existing document. The Williams argue that the creation of a false document ...
From Williams v. Continental Express Co., 2008 Ohio 5312, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4464 (Ohio App. Oct. 14, 2008): [T]he Williams argue that the trial court erred by determining that a spoliation claim requires an allegation of destruction or alteration…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Premature Service of Discovery Requests Does Not Violate Rule 26(g) or 37(b)(2)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(g) provides: (1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's own name - or by the party personally, if unrepresented . . . . By signi ...
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(g) provides: (1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the…
Continue Reading

Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) — Court Not Obliged to Ferret Through Complaint in Search of Viable Claims, Even in Pro Se Action

From Sloan v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14346 (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2009): To the extent the complaint possibly could be combed to find a claim that is non-frivolous — and also not barred by res judicata, the applicable statues of limitations, or judicial or other immunity doctrines — a court is not obliged to ferret throug ...
From Sloan v. Smith, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14346 (W.D. Va. Feb. 24, 2009): To the extent the complaint possibly could be combed to find a claim that is non-frivolous — and also not barred by res judicata, the applicable…
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Web Page from Internet Archive Properly Authenticated by Affidavit

From Masters v. UHS of Del., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107383 (E.D. Mo. Oct.21, 2008): Plaintiff asks the Court to find that exhibit 110, a compilation of defendant's websites that had been archived by a third party, the Internet Archive, is admissible. In support of its motion, plaintiff has submitted the affidavit of Paul Hickman, an ...
From Masters v. UHS of Del., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107383 (E.D. Mo. Oct.21, 2008): Plaintiff asks the Court to find that exhibit 110, a compilation of defendant’s websites that had been archived by a third party, the Internet…
Continue Reading
Previous434435436437438439440Next

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