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

Taxing Costs of Both Video and Stenographic Record of Deposition

From Jackson v. UPS, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101385 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2008), in which defendant UPS sought to tax costs after prevailing on summary judgment, not trial: The Court finds merit in only one of Jackson's objections to UPS' Bill of Costs — the request to recover $ 898.75 for videotaping Plaintiff Jackson's deposition... ...
From Jackson v. UPS, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101385 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2008), in which defendant UPS sought to tax costs after prevailing on summary judgment, not trial: The Court finds merit in only one of Jackson’s objections…
Continue Reading

Text of New York Rules of Professional Conduct (Effective 4/1/09)

Download associated file: NY Rules of Professional Conduct.pdf  Attached you will find the text of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which take effect on April 1, 2009. ...
Download associated file: NY Rules of Professional Conduct.pdf  Attached you will find the text of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which take effect on April 1, 2009.…
Continue Reading

Additional Counterclaim Defendant May Not Remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (General) or § 1453 (CAFA)

An additional counterclaim defendant is not a “defendant” within the meaning of the removal statutes, under Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25165 (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2008): This case presents an issue of first impression — whether a party joined as a defendant to a counterclaim (the "additional counter-defen ...
An additional counterclaim defendant is not a “defendant” within the meaning of the removal statutes, under Palisades Collections LLC v. Shorts, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 25165 (4th Cir. Dec. 16, 2008): This case presents an issue of first impression —…
Continue Reading

Transferee Court Has Power to Sanction Frivolous Filings Made in Transferor Court

From Anderson v. Wade, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24772 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 2008): In determining that it lacked authority to impose sanctions against Anderson for filings that were made in the Virginia district court, the district court relied on Edwards v. General Motors Corp., 153 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1998), In re Allnutt, 155 F.3 ...
From Anderson v. Wade, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24772 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 2008): In determining that it lacked authority to impose sanctions against Anderson for filings that were made in the Virginia district court, the district court relied on…
Continue Reading

Sole Proprietorship May Proceed Pro Se in Federal Court

From A. L. Enters. v. Sebron, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100391 (D. Utah Dec. 10, 2008): Many cases have recognized that although an entity cannot appear pro se, an exception exists when an entity is a sole proprietorship, because "a sole proprietorship has no legal existence apart from its owner." [Footnote 3. United States v. F ...
From A. L. Enters. v. Sebron, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100391 (D. Utah Dec. 10, 2008): Many cases have recognized that although an entity cannot appear pro se, an exception exists when an entity is a sole proprietorship, because “a…
Continue Reading

$16.8 Million Sanction Upheld Under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and Inherent Power of the Court

The overwhelming bulk of the $16.8 million in sanctions imposed in Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24743 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2008), was awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that, in a patent case, a trial court "in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." However, expert witness fe ...
The overwhelming bulk of the $16.8 million in sanctions imposed in Takeda Chem. Indus. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24743 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2008), was awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that, in a…
Continue Reading

No Adverse Possession of Intellectual Property Rights

From Picture Patents, LLC v. Terra Holdings LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98030 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2008): ... I am aware that IBM has had actual knowledge of the claim by plaintiff's assignor that she owns the invention for approximately fifteen years and that IBM has taken no steps to assert ownership. However, unless and until adverse poss ...
From Picture Patents, LLC v. Terra Holdings LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98030 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2008): … I am aware that IBM has had actual knowledge of the claim by plaintiff’s assignor that she owns the invention for approximately…
Continue Reading

Spoliation & Summary Judgment Plus a New Species of Sub-Spoliation

From Wood v. Pittsford Central School Dist., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24733 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2008): Finally, for summary judgment purposes, we cannot foreclose the possibility of an adverse spoliation inference on this record. "In borderline cases, an inference of spoliation, in combination with 'some (not insubstantial) evidence' for the ...
From Wood v. Pittsford Central School Dist., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24733 (2d Cir. Dec. 8, 2008): Finally, for summary judgment purposes, we cannot foreclose the possibility of an adverse spoliation inference on this record. “In borderline cases, an inference…
Continue Reading

Proposed F.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and Mandatory Statements of Undisputed Fact

Download associated files: PRACTITIONERS' COMMENT ON RULE 56(c).pdf, N D California Comment. December 11, 2008.pdf  History teaches that, once the Advisory Committee on the Federal Ru ...
Download associated files: PRACTITIONERS’ COMMENT ON RULE 56(c).pdf, N D California Comment. December 11, 2008.pdf  History teaches that, once the Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure puts a proposed amendment out for public comment, there…
Continue Reading

Duty to Mitigate Survives Entry of Default Judgment

From 16 Cobalt LLC v. Harrison Career Institute, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98866 (Dec. 8, 2008): Both parties agree that Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages.... Plaintiff, however, contends that the duty to mitigate is an affirmative defense and that Defendant's failure to file an answer and the consequent default judgment entered agains ...
From 16 Cobalt LLC v. Harrison Career Institute, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98866 (Dec. 8, 2008): Both parties agree that Plaintiff has a duty to mitigate damages…. Plaintiff, however, contends that the duty to mitigate is an affirmative defense and…
Continue Reading
Previous442443444445446447448Next

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