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

Ninth Circuit Holds that American Pipe Tolls Statute of Limitations for Absent Class Member Who Files Suit Before Class Certification Decided

Deciding what it described as an issue of first impression in the Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held in In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Lit., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16479 (9th Cir. July 29, 2008), that Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) tolls the statute of limitations for a plaintiff who files a separate action pending class certificatio ...
Deciding what it described as an issue of first impression in the Circuit, the Ninth Circuit held in In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Lit., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16479 (9th Cir. July 29, 2008), that Am. Pipe & Constr. Co.…
Continue Reading

Decision Declining to Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction under § 1367(c) Is Reviewable under § 1291 Despite § 1447(d) — Mandamus Inapt

In California Dept. of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16252 (9th Cir. July 22, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not foreclose appellate review of a district court's decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under § 1367(c). The Powerex Court held that the right to appeal lie ...
In California Dept. of Water Resources v. Powerex Corp., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16252 (9th Cir. July 22, 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) does not foreclose appellate review of a district court’s decision to decline…
Continue Reading

Experts — Improper to Cross Examine Expert with Report or Deposition Testimony of Non-Testifying Expert

In In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Lit., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16479 (9th Cir. July 29, 2008), the defendants succeeded in barring expert 1 (Dr. Ruttenber) from testifying. Plaintiffs instead called expert 2 (Dr. Davies), who never read the report or deposition of expert 1, but did rely on expert 1’s dosage estimates. At trial, defense counsel on cross-e ...
In In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Lit., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16479 (9th Cir. July 29, 2008), the defendants succeeded in barring expert 1 (Dr. Ruttenber) from testifying. Plaintiffs instead called expert 2 (Dr. Davies), who never read the report…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Imposed for Failing to Withdraw Position during 21-Day Safe Harbor

It used to be the case that there was no duty to withdraw a position From Fabriko Acquisition Corp. v. Prokos, , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (7th Cir. July 29, 2008): Although Sorenson informed Fabriko of the causation problem in a letter and subsequently in a formal motion for sanctions, Fabriko did not take advantage of the 21-day windo ...
It used to be the case that there was no duty to withdraw a position From Fabriko Acquisition Corp. v. Prokos, , 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (7th Cir. July 29, 2008): Although Sorenson informed Fabriko of the causation problem…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — What Does Grable Mean?

The defendant in Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16191 (5th Cir. July 30, 2008), had unsuccessfully represented the plaintiff in a trademark action. The plaintiff, in this action, sued in Texas state court for malpractice, alleging that the defendant was negligent in failing to offer available proof of secondary meaning, leading to the loss ...
The defendant in Singh v. Duane Morris LLP, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16191 (5th Cir. July 30, 2008), had unsuccessfully represented the plaintiff in a trademark action. The plaintiff, in this action, sued in Texas state court for malpractice, alleging…
Continue Reading

Assessing the Good Faith of a Settlement that Affects the Rights of Non-Settling Co-Defendants

From Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s opinion in In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe") Products Liability Litigation, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57504 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2008): ExxonMobil's objections to a determination of a good faith settlement are relatively limited. It concedes that the settling parties have defined a "ballpark" for cla ...
From Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s opinion in In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“Mtbe”) Products Liability Litigation, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57504 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2008): ExxonMobil’s objections to a determination of a good faith settlement are relatively limited. It…
Continue Reading

Waiver of Issue on Appeal by Failing to Argue It (as Opposed to Asserting It) in Opening Brief

From Mullarkey v. Tamboer, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16238 (3d Cir. July 31, 2008): Furthermore, while Mullarkey asserted in his opening brief that he could seek a civil remedy for the Tamboers' violation of the federal RICO statute, he failed to present any argument in support. Thus, we deem this claim to be waived. Laborers' Intern. Un ...
From Mullarkey v. Tamboer, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16238 (3d Cir. July 31, 2008): Furthermore, while Mullarkey asserted in his opening brief that he could seek a civil remedy for the Tamboers’ violation of the federal RICO statute, he failed…
Continue Reading

Supplemental Jurisdiction — Issues of First Impression under State Law Leads Court to Decline to Exercise Federal Jurisdiction Following Dismissal of Federal Claims

From Judge Mark R. Kravitz’s opinion in Hernandez v. Carbone, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57264(D. Conn. July 29, 2008): Having dismissed all of Mr. Hernandez's federal claims against Mr. Carbone, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Second Circuit ha ...
From Judge Mark R. Kravitz’s opinion in Hernandez v. Carbone, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57264(D. Conn. July 29, 2008): Having dismissed all of Mr. Hernandez’s federal claims against Mr. Carbone, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state…
Continue Reading

Removal — Eleventh Circuit Adopts Last-Served Defendant Rule, Allowing Removal within 30 Days of Service on Last Defendant

From Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16042 (11th Cir. July 29, 2008): The action was originally filed in state court and removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), pursuant to § 1446(b), by the last-served defendant more than thirty days after service on the other defendants. *** This case presents an issu ...
From Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16042 (11th Cir. July 29, 2008): The action was originally filed in state court and removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), pursuant to § 1446(b), by the last-served defendant more…
Continue Reading

RICO / Mail Fraud — Bridge Does Not Dispense with Reliance Requirement Where Reliance Affirmatively Pled

After the district judge denied class certification in Dungan v. Academy at Ivy Ridge, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56757 (N.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008), the plaintiffs sought reconsideration on the ground that the Supreme Court’s June 9, 2008 decision in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 128 S. Ct. 2131 (2008), constituted a material change in controlling law ...
After the district judge denied class certification in Dungan v. Academy at Ivy Ridge, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56757 (N.D.N.Y. July 21, 2008), the plaintiffs sought reconsideration on the ground that the Supreme Court’s June 9, 2008 decision in Bridge…
Continue Reading
Previous453454455456457458459Next

Recent Posts

Patently Frivolous RICO Complaint Fails to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — Subject to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal — Abuse of Discretion Review Is “More Exacting” When Judge is “Accuser, Fact Finder and Sentencing Judge All in One” — Client Responsible for Her Lawyer’s Discovery Defalcations — No Need for Evidentiary Hearing When Sanctions Based Entirely on an Established Record — Lesser Sanctions Reasonably Determined to be Ineffective Given Record of Repeated Discovery Abuses

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal for Fraud on the Court — Fabrication of Evidence and Lying about It to the Court — 2-Part Test for Dismissal Sanction (Eleventh Circuit) — Whether Fraud on Court Was Committed for the Court, Not a Jury

New York Law Firm That Advised Florida Resident for Years Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in Florida, Thus Subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in Florida — Court Cannot Amend Protective Order Following Dismissal of Case Unless the Order Retains Jurisdiction Post-Dismissal — Parties Can Enforce Stipulated Protective Order Post-Dismissal Through Breach of Contract Action

Rule 37(e)/Spoliation — “Intent to Deprive” Determined under the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard — Court May Make Determination Or Allow Jury to Do So — Lesser “Culpable Conduct” Standard of Residential Funding Continues to Apply in Second Circuit Outside ESI Context — Once Judge Has Definitively Ruled on the Record Denying A Requested Instruction, Counsel Is Not Required to Object to the Charge Again at Trial to Preserve Issue for Appeal

Rule 11 (9011) and Inherent Power Sanctions for “Unapologetic [Refusal to Apologize] Defiance” of Court’s Rules and Orders — Advising Client to Take Steps That Same Judge Had Told Lawyer Were Improper in Prior Case — Obstinate Recidivism — Silence upon Withdrawal of Motion As Rule 11 (9011) Violation (Noted But Not Addressed on Appeal)

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

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