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

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

General Release in Class Action Bars Subsequent Claim by Non-Opt-Out Only If Issues in Second Suit Are Identical to Those in First — Circuit Split

The plaintiff in Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enters., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44651 (D. S.D. June 5, 2008) — a Little Caesars franchise owner — did not opt out of a class action settlement in 2001 and, as a result, conferred a general release in favor the defendants. The defendants asserted that, although the claims in the class action were unrelat ...
The plaintiff in Pinnacle Pizza Co. v. Little Caesar Enters., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44651 (D. S.D. June 5, 2008) — a Little Caesars franchise owner — did not opt out of a class action settlement in 2001 and, as…
Continue Reading

Expert Testimony Disallowed but Testimony from Witness Elucidating Research Allowed as Factual

In the MTBE mass tort litigation, In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("MTBE") Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44216 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2008), homeowners in a small town in Orange County, New York, contended that their property values had been damaged by MTBE pollution. Their expert was prepared to testify that property values had declined 15% based ...
In the MTBE mass tort litigation, In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (“MTBE”) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44216 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2008), homeowners in a small town in Orange County, New York, contended that their property values…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Settlement & Mootness

Fleming & Assoc’s v. Newby & Tittle, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11764 (5th Cir. May 30, 2008) presented the following factual scenario: September 14, 2006 — District Court issues order sanctioning plaintiffs’ counsel “for changing the [plaintiffs’] expert witness report” and orders reimbursement of certain defendants’ attorneys' ...
Fleming & Assoc’s v. Newby & Tittle, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 11764 (5th Cir. May 30, 2008) presented the following factual scenario: September 14, 2006 — District Court issues order sanctioning plaintiffs’ counsel “for changing the [plaintiffs’] expert witness report”…
Continue Reading
Previous458459460461462463464Next

Recent Posts

RICO Person vs. Enterprise: Subsidiary in Typical Corporate Structure Does Not Control Parent And Therefore Does Not Conduct Parent’s Affairs

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

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