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

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

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
Previous436437438439440441442Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

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

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