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

Standards for Certifying Interlocutory Appeal under § 1292(b) — Implications of Need to Study Record or Assess Sufficiency of Pleadings

From Santiago v. Pinello, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3179 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2009): A district court may certify an interlocutory appeal under three conditions: (1) where the order appealed from "involves a controlling question of law" (2) "as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion" and (3) where "an immediate appeal fr ...
From Santiago v. Pinello, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3179 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2009): A district court may certify an interlocutory appeal under three conditions: (1) where the order appealed from “involves a controlling question of law” (2) “as to which…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Improper Purpose — Filing Contract Claim to Collect Balance Due Not Improper Even If Plaintiff Lacks License That Is a Prerequisite to Suit

From Persis Nova Constr., Inc. v. Edwards, 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 61 (N.C. App. Jan. 20, 2009): "An improper purpose is 'any purpose other than one to vindicate rights . . . or to put claims of right to a proper test.'" Mack v. Moore, 107 N.C. App. 87, 93, 418 S.E.2d 685, 689 (1992) (quoting Gregory P. Joseph, Sanctions: The Fe ...
From Persis Nova Constr., Inc. v. Edwards, 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 61 (N.C. App. Jan. 20, 2009): “An improper purpose is ‘any purpose other than one to vindicate rights . . . or to put claims of right to a…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Bad Faith Not Required in First Circuit

From Velez v. Marriott PR Mgmt., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103484 (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 2008): Applicable caselaw in the First Circuit has clearly established that "bad faith or comparable bad motive" is not required for the court to exclude evidence in situations involving spoliation. Trull v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 187 F. ...
From Velez v. Marriott PR Mgmt., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103484 (D.P.R. Dec. 22, 2008): Applicable caselaw in the First Circuit has clearly established that “bad faith or comparable bad motive” is not required for the court to exclude…
Continue Reading

Corporate Attorney-Client Privilege — Sale of Business (Asset Sale) — No Waiver By Leaving Privileged Date on Company Computer at Time of Sale

Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ronsen, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90981 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008): Numerex argues that Old Orbit One waived its right to assert privilege with respect to any documents remaining on its computers after August 1, 2008 because title transferred to Numerex at that time. To support its position, Numerex relies primari ...
Orbit One Commc’ns, Inc. v. Ronsen, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90981 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008): Numerex argues that Old Orbit One waived its right to assert privilege with respect to any documents remaining on its computers after August 1, 2008…
Continue Reading

After 30 Day Removal Period Has Expired, Notice of Removal May Not be Amended to Assert New Ground for Federal Jurisdiction

From Geismann v. Aestheticare, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106545 (D. Kan. April 9, 2008): ***28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) requires defendant to effect removal by filing a notice of removal in the federal court. Subsection (b) of that statute mandates that defendant file the notice of removal within 30 days after receiving notice of the removable ...
From Geismann v. Aestheticare, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106545 (D. Kan. April 9, 2008): ***28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) requires defendant to effect removal by filing a notice of removal in the federal court. Subsection (b) of that statute mandates…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Filing Bankruptcy Petition to Delay Civil Litigation

From Ng v. Office of U.S. Trustee, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 798 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2009): The bankruptcy court's determination that Ng acted in bad faith by filing the underlying bankruptcy petition for the sole purpose of obstructing a related civil case was not clear error, and the bankruptcy court therefore did not abuse its discretion in ...
From Ng v. Office of U.S. Trustee, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 798 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2009): The bankruptcy court’s determination that Ng acted in bad faith by filing the underlying bankruptcy petition for the sole purpose of obstructing a…
Continue Reading

Email Authenticated by Distinctive Characteristics, Including “@”

From Wireless Networks, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95696 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008): Plaintiff objects to the admissibility of e-mails contained in the Declaration of Jessica La Londe at exhibit E as lacking authenticity. First, Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of any e-mails there were sent by Plaintiff. Second, the remain ...
From Wireless Networks, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95696 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2008): Plaintiff objects to the admissibility of e-mails contained in the Declaration of Jessica La Londe at exhibit E as lacking authenticity. First, Plaintiff does not dispute…
Continue Reading

January 2009 Meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure

On Tuesday, January 13, 2009, I moderated a panel discussion at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The topic was Problems in Civil Litigation and Possible Reforms. The materials included my article Federal Litigation: Where Did It Go Off Track? (available on the Recent Articles page -- ...
On Tuesday, January 13, 2009, I moderated a panel discussion at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference. The topic was Problems in Civil Litigation and Possible Reforms. The materials…
Continue Reading

Corporate Dual Citizenship Prevents Minimal Diversity under CAFA

From From Johnson v. Advance America, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25050 (4th Cir. Dec. 12, 2008): Advance America contends that the minimal diversity requirement is satisfied in this case. It argues first that because Advance America is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and is therefore a Delaware citizen, its citizenship is different fr ...
From From Johnson v. Advance America, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25050 (4th Cir. Dec. 12, 2008): Advance America contends that the minimal diversity requirement is satisfied in this case. It argues first that because Advance America is incorporated under the…
Continue Reading

RICO — Concrete Injury — Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine

The RICO complaint was dismissed on multiple grounds in District 1199P Health & Welfare Plan v. Janssen, LP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10352 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008). The basic claim was that the defendants deceptively marketed a more expensive drug (Risperdal) for off-label uses that could have been more cheaply, and equally effectively, accomplished by less expe ...
The RICO complaint was dismissed on multiple grounds in District 1199P Health & Welfare Plan v. Janssen, LP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10352 (D.N.J. Dec. 23, 2008). The basic claim was that the defendants deceptively marketed a more expensive drug…
Continue Reading
Previous441442443444445446447Next

Recent Posts

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

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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