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

Daubert — Gatekeeper vs. Cross-Examination — Factors

From Powers v. Union Pac. RR, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22131 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008): Trial courts are charged with the responsibility of acting as the gatekeepers of expert testimony. *** [Footnote 3] This being said, "the trial court's role as gatekeeper is not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary ...
From Powers v. Union Pac. RR, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22131 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2008): Trial courts are charged with the responsibility of acting as the gatekeepers of expert testimony. *** [Footnote 3] This being said, “the trial court’s…
Continue Reading

Electronic Discovery — Metadata Discrepancies Warranting Re-Production of Email from Alternate Source in Native Format — Grounds for Obtaining Mirror Image of Hard Drive

From White v. Graceland College Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22068 (D. Kan. Mar. 18, 2009): [Discrepancies Warranting Production of Metadata] The report provided by Plaintiff's computer expert … indicates that he found discrepancies between the creation and sent dates of the ema ...
From White v. Graceland College Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22068 (D. Kan. Mar. 18, 2009): [Discrepancies Warranting Production of Metadata] The report provided by Plaintiff’s computer expert … indicates that he found…
Continue Reading

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
Previous435436437438439440441Next

Recent Posts

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice