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

Party Directly Injured by RICO Violation Has Standing Even If It Is Not the Defendants’ Intended or Primary Victim

Plaintiff RWB in RWB Serv., LLC v. Hartford Computer Group, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18142 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2008), complained that the defendants misappropriated used cameras in which the plaintiff had security interests and then resold the cameras as new to Wal-Mart, thus stealing from the plaintiff in order to defraud Wal-Mart. The district court dismissed t ...
Plaintiff RWB in RWB Serv., LLC v. Hartford Computer Group, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18142 (7th Cir. Aug. 25, 2008), complained that the defendants misappropriated used cameras in which the plaintiff had security interests and then resold the cameras as…
Continue Reading

Federal Litigation: Where Did It Go Off Track? — The Poetic Equivalent

A distinguished trial lawyer from Chicago, Bob Cummins, penned what I consider a poetic sibling to my article, Federal Litigation: Where Did It Go Off Track? (published in the Summer 2008 issue of Litigation and posted on the Recent Articles page at http://www.josephny_live.com/articles/viewarticle.php?53). Bob’s classic sonnet follows: ...
A distinguished trial lawyer from Chicago, Bob Cummins, penned what I consider a poetic sibling to my article, Federal Litigation: Where Did It Go Off Track? (published in the Summer 2008 issue of Litigation and posted on the Recent Articles…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — the Ellison/Oracle Decision — Adverse Inference Applied on Summary Judgment

The press has widely reported the fact that Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, has been sanctioned for spoliation. The opinion, Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66740 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008), has a few points of interest. First, the plaintiffs complained that the litigation hold notice went out to only 30 of Oracle ...
The press has widely reported the fact that Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, has been sanctioned for spoliation. The opinion, Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66740 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2008), has a few…
Continue Reading

Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Will Be Law By September 22, 2008

The statute that is Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was sent to the President on September 11, 2008. If not vetoed (and it will not be vetoed) or signed sooner, it will become law within 10 days of September 11, 2008. ...
The statute that is Federal Rule of Evidence 502 was sent to the President on September 11, 2008. If not vetoed (and it will not be vetoed) or signed sooner, it will become law within 10 days of September 11, 2008.
Continue Reading

Negligence Action for Damages Arising from Third-Party Spoliation Permitted Under New York Law

From Newton v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54084 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2008): New York does not recognize the tort of "third-party negligent spoliation of evidence." [N. 126: Ortega v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 69 (2007).] However, the courts appear to permit an action for the negligent destruction of evidence so long ...
From Newton v. City of New York, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54084 (S.D.N.Y. July 16, 2008): New York does not recognize the tort of “third-party negligent spoliation of evidence.” [N. 126: Ortega v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 69…
Continue Reading

Forum Selection Clause Does Not Prevent 28 U.S.C. § 1404 Transfer — When Non-Signatories Are Bound by Forum Selection Clause

The forum selection clause in Elite Sports Enters. v. Lococo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67472 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2008), provided: 13.2 Choice of Law and Selection of Venue. Except as provided in Paragraph 13.9 hereof, this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New Jersey . . . The parties further agree that any actio ...
The forum selection clause in Elite Sports Enters. v. Lococo, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67472 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2008), provided: 13.2 Choice of Law and Selection of Venue. Except as provided in Paragraph 13.9 hereof, this Agreement shall be governed…
Continue Reading

Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Has Passed Congress

Download associated file: Fed R Evid 502.pdf  On Monday, September 8, 2008, the House passed Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Waiver of Privilege and Work Product). The Senate passed the Rule on February 27, 2008, and the President is expected to sign it into law shortly. ...
Download associated file: Fed R Evid 502.pdf  On Monday, September 8, 2008, the House passed Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Waiver of Privilege and Work Product). The Senate passed the Rule on February 27, 2008, and the President is…
Continue Reading

Hedonic Damages, Daubert and the Province of the Jury

From Martinez v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97414 (D.N.M. Sept. 6, 2007): While New Mexico permits the recovery of hedonic damages, expert testimony attempting to quantify such damages invades the fact finder's domain. See Romero v. Byers, 117 N.M. 422, 428, 872 P.2d 840, 846 (1994); Couch v. Astec Industries, In ...
From Martinez v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97414 (D.N.M. Sept. 6, 2007): While New Mexico permits the recovery of hedonic damages, expert testimony attempting to quantify such damages invades the fact finder’s domain. See Romero v. Byers, 117…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — High Threshold for Bad Faith — Limiting Language

After the plaintiffs prevailed in their civil rights action in Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18426 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2008), the trial judge sanctioned plaintiffs’ lead counsel for failure to appear personally at a hearing on an Order to Show Cause, although it was not specified in the order that lead counsel personally was requi ...
After the plaintiffs prevailed in their civil rights action in Mendez v. County of San Bernardino, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18426 (9th Cir. Aug. 27, 2008), the trial judge sanctioned plaintiffs’ lead counsel for failure to appear personally at a…
Continue Reading
Previous452453454455456457458Next

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