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 at Class Certification

From Rhodes v E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46159 (S.D. W.Va. June 11, 2008): • “This court finds the Second Circuit's review of the recent development of the law and its reasoning to be helpful in determining this matter. [In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Lit., 192 F.R.D. 68 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) ("< ...
From Rhodes v E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46159 (S.D. W.Va. June 11, 2008): • “This court finds the Second Circuit’s review of the recent development of the law and its reasoning to be helpful…
Continue Reading

Sanctions, Reputation & Appellate Review

From 1-10 Indus. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10786 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2008): Justice Stevens observed in Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 413, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1990), that the most precious asset of an attorney is his professional reputation. A formal order of sanction of a ...
From 1-10 Indus. Assocs., LLC v. United States, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10786 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2008): Justice Stevens observed in Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 413, 110 S. Ct. 2447, 110 L. Ed. 2d…
Continue Reading

International Arbitration — Summary Judgment, Issues of First Impression and Manifest Disregard

The plaintiff sought to vacate an international arbitration award entered against him, claiming, among other things, that the tribunal’s entry of summary judgment was without legal precedent and therefore in manifest disregard of the law. Rejected: LaPine claims that the lack of legal precedent regarding summary adjudication in an internation ...
The plaintiff sought to vacate an international arbitration award entered against him, claiming, among other things, that the tribunal’s entry of summary judgment was without legal precedent and therefore in manifest disregard of the law. Rejected: LaPine claims that the…
Continue Reading

Expert Witness Fees at Deposition — What Is “Manifest Injustice” under Rule 26(b)(4)(C)?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) provides: (C) Payment. Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery: (i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A) or (B); and (ii) for disc ...
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(C) provides: (C) Payment. Unless manifest injustice would result, the court must require that the party seeking discovery: (i) pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under Rule 26(b)(4)(A)…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Standards Applicable to Pro Se Litigants

From Graham v. Fleissner Law Firm, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41523 (E.D. Tenn. May 22, 2008): [T]he Supreme Court has held that courts should liberally construe complaints filed by pro se parties, and they should not hold them to the same stringent standard required of licensed attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 ...
From Graham v. Fleissner Law Firm, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41523 (E.D. Tenn. May 22, 2008): [T]he Supreme Court has held that courts should liberally construe complaints filed by pro se parties, and they should not hold them to the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Reaches Government Counsel’s Monitoring Attorney-Client Privileged Communications between Plaintiffs and Their Counsel

District Judge Garr M. King was not convinced that Government lawyers, representing the defendant in Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. U.S. Dept’ of Treasury, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45675 (D. Or. June 5, 2008), were monitoring the plaintiffs’ communications with their counsel, in this challenge to the designation of on of the plaintiffs as a terroris ...
District Judge Garr M. King was not convinced that Government lawyers, representing the defendant in Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, Inc. v. U.S. Dept’ of Treasury, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45675 (D. Or. June 5, 2008), were monitoring the plaintiffs’ communications…
Continue Reading

Securities — Are Equity Swaps Subject to Section 13(d) Reporting?

Download associated file: CSX Equity Swaps Opinion.pdf  Equity swaps confer on their owner all of the financial attributes of share ownership but not the right to vote shares. It has been received wisdom on Wall Street that these swaps do not confer beneficial ownership ...
Download associated file: CSX Equity Swaps Opinion.pdf  Equity swaps confer on their owner all of the financial attributes of share ownership but not the right to vote shares. It has been received wisdom on Wall Street that these swaps…
Continue Reading

RICO — Conclusory Allegations of Pattern Inadequate — Good Quote

From Dalton v. City of Las Vegas, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12522 (10th Cir. June 12, 2008): Simply listing the litany of offenses allegedly committed by defendants, without any specification as to which acts (1) qualify as § 1961 predicate acts and (2) also occurred within the time frame required to satisfy § 1961(5), is insufficient to st ...
From Dalton v. City of Las Vegas, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 12522 (10th Cir. June 12, 2008): Simply listing the litany of offenses allegedly committed by defendants, without any specification as to which acts (1) qualify as § 1961 predicate…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) & Electronic Discovery — Dissipated Importance of the Location of Documentary Evidence

A traditional factor that the Court considers in deciding a motion to change venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is whether the location of witnesses and evidence and the parties' convenience strongly favors transferring the case. From Kabat v. Bayer Cropscience, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41187 (E.D. Va. May 22, 2008): “‘[I]t is doubtful that ‘i ...
A traditional factor that the Court considers in deciding a motion to change venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is whether the location of witnesses and evidence and the parties’ convenience strongly favors transferring the case. From Kabat v.…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Imposed on Plaintiff’s Counsel Who Refused to Dismiss Case after Client’s Deposition Demonstrated Lack of Merit

After the plaintiff’s deposition revealed that her claim was meritless, defense counsel wrote a letter requesting that the action be withdrawn. Plaintiff’s counsel declined. Litigation proceeded through summary judgment, for which the plaintiff unsuccessfully advanced a new theory of liability supported by an affidavit in which the plaintiff contradicted her d ...
After the plaintiff’s deposition revealed that her claim was meritless, defense counsel wrote a letter requesting that the action be withdrawn. Plaintiff’s counsel declined. Litigation proceeded through summary judgment, for which the plaintiff unsuccessfully advanced a new theory of liability…
Continue Reading
Previous453454455456457458459Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice