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

Groundless Verification of Interrogatory Answers Not Sanctionable under Rule 26(g)

The individual who verified plaintiff State Farm’s interrogatory answers in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), did little or nothing to insure their accuracy. The defendants moved for sanctions under Rule 26(g), which provides that “[e]very disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and ...
The individual who verified plaintiff State Farm’s interrogatory answers in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), did little or nothing to insure their accuracy. The defendants…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — American Pipe Tolling Applies to Individual Action Filed Pending Class Certification — Circuit Split

From Phillips v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 521 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008): The Sixth Circuit... [has] held that the purposes of class action tolling under American Pipe "are not furthered when plaintiffs file independent actions before decision on the issue of class certification." Wyser-Pratte Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Telxon,
From Phillips v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 521 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2008): The Sixth Circuit… [has] held that the purposes of class action tolling under American Pipe “are not furthered when plaintiffs file independent actions before decision…
Continue Reading

Class Action Fairness Act — Securities Class Action Pursued as a State Consumer Fraud Claim Is Removable under CAFA

The Second Circuit held in Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10269 (2d Cir. May 13, 2008), that federal jurisdiction exists under CAFA (28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(9) (C) and 1453(d)(3)) over a class action alleging that officers of an issuer — abetted by the issuer's auditor — failed to disclose, while marketing debt certificates, that the is ...
The Second Circuit held in Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10269 (2d Cir. May 13, 2008), that federal jurisdiction exists under CAFA (28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(9) (C) and 1453(d)(3)) over a class action alleging that officers…
Continue Reading

Securities — $1.2 Million Civil Penalty Imposed Under § 20(d) of the Securities Act and § 21(d) of the Securities Exchange Act — Factors Affecting Quantum

An individual defendant in SEC v. AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36782 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2008) committed violations involving fraud or deceit under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC requested that the final judgment against him (Bruteyn) include third-tier civil penalties under § 20(d) of the Securities Act an ...
An individual defendant in SEC v. AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36782 (N.D. Tex. May 5, 2008) committed violations involving fraud or deceit under both the Securities Act and the Securities Exchange Act. The SEC requested that the…
Continue Reading

Witness Intimidation as Spoliation

From United States v. Manns, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10016 (6th Cir. May 5, 2008) (unpublished), in which the defendant threatened the lives of two witnesses in statements — not to the witnesses — but to his cellmate: We find unconvincing Manns's arguments that his alleged statement to Steven Tackett does not constitute admissible spoli ...
From United States v. Manns, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10016 (6th Cir. May 5, 2008) (unpublished), in which the defendant threatened the lives of two witnesses in statements — not to the witnesses — but to his cellmate: We find…
Continue Reading

Duties and Discretion of District Court in Implementing Appellate Mandate

The plaintiff in Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10196 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008), contended that the District Court on remand had ignored the Third Circuit’s prior opinion, which held as follows regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to recover attorneys' fees: We do not think that Mr. Pardini is precluded fr ...
The plaintiff in Pardini v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 10196 (3d Cir. May 12, 2008), contended that the District Court on remand had ignored the Third Circuit’s prior opinion, which held as follows regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement…
Continue Reading

$50,000 Sanction Imposed on Lawyer and Client for Presenting Forged Documents to Court

From Mullins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34811 (E.D. Mich. April 29, 2008): Concerned about the allegations of fraud, the Court conducted a series of evidentiary hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Court determined that the three documents presented by Plaintiff were indeed fraudulent. In a July 25, 2007 or ...
From Mullins v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34811 (E.D. Mich. April 29, 2008): Concerned about the allegations of fraud, the Court conducted a series of evidentiary hearings. At the conclusion of the hearings, the Court determined that…
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility — Hearsay — Rules 807 (Catchall Exception) and 803(1) (Present Sense Impression)

The plaintiff in Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32512 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2008), was suing for a commission. Plaintiff TRP’s entitlement to the commission depended on characterization of the deal that the defendant (AAR) entered into Northwest Airlines (NWA). The admissibility of two emails was challenged on hearsay grounds ...
The plaintiff in Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32512 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2008), was suing for a commission. Plaintiff TRP’s entitlement to the commission depended on characterization of the deal that the defendant…
Continue Reading

Binding Effect of 30(b)(6) Deposition Testimony — Admission vs. Judicial Admission — Impact on Summary Judgment vs. at Trial

State Farm’s 30(b)(6) witness in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), Mr. Bowles, did nothing to prepare for his testimony other than meet with counsel. Accordingly, when questioned about the basis of certain claims asserted by State Farm — one of the purposes of the deposition — “c ...
State Farm’s 30(b)(6) witness in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New Horizon, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37571 (E.D. Pa. May 7, 2008), Mr. Bowles, did nothing to prepare for his testimony other than meet with counsel. Accordingly,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Experts — Misstatement of Fact in Expert Report as Potentially Outside Rule 11

Plaintiff’s expert in Vidalia Dock & Storage Co. v. Donald Engine Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32026 (W.D. La. April 17, 2008), made a misstatement of fact, asserting that the plaintiff owned a vessel (M/V CARLA J) that was owned by someone else. Plaintiff’s counsel and plaintiff were evidently aware of the error but did not correct it. The Court questi ...
Plaintiff’s expert in Vidalia Dock & Storage Co. v. Donald Engine Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32026 (W.D. La. April 17, 2008), made a misstatement of fact, asserting that the plaintiff owned a vessel (M/V CARLA J) that was owned…
Continue Reading
Previous459460461462463464465Next

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far From Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

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