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

Experts —Exaggerated Credentials — New Trial

Experts gild their credentials in many ways. It is not always a blessing for the proponent of the witness. The defense won a jury verdict in In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40612 (E.D. La. May 29, 2007), after the first trial had resulted in a hung jury. On the way to the jury verdict, the well-credentialed defense medical expert cou ...
Experts gild their credentials in many ways. It is not always a blessing for the proponent of the witness. The defense won a jury verdict in In re Vioxx Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40612 (E.D. La. May…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782 — Application to International Arbitration

Download associated file: Hallmark 1782 Order.pdf  Following up on our post of January 23, 2007, the District of Minnesota has ordered § 1782 discovery in aid of an international arbitration abroad. In an unreported decision, which is attached, Magistrate Judge Susan Ri ...
Download associated file: Hallmark 1782 Order.pdf  Following up on our post of January 23, 2007, the District of Minnesota has ordered § 1782 discovery in aid of an international arbitration abroad. In an unreported decision, which is attached, Magistrate…
Continue Reading

Removal — One-Year Limit — Equitable Exception?

28 U.S.C. § 1448(b) provides a seemingly absolute one-year time limit on removal of non-CAFA cases that were not initially removable but become so later: If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after receipt by the defendant ... of a copy of [a] ... paper from which it may ...
28 U.S.C. § 1448(b) provides a seemingly absolute one-year time limit on removal of non-CAFA cases that were not initially removable but become so later: If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal…
Continue Reading

Prevailing Party — Preliminary Injunction — Attorney’s Fees

In Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff was not ‛prevailing party“ for attorney's fees purposes if it succeeded in crushing the defendant’s will and obtaining the relief it sought voluntarily. To "prevail," it had to obtain an ‛alteration in the legal relations ...
In Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff was not ‛prevailing party“ for attorney’s fees purposes if it succeeded in crushing the…
Continue Reading

Extension of Time to File Appeal — 14 Day Period Jurisdictional

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) implements 28 U.S.C. §2107(c), permitting the District Court to reopen and extend the time within which an appeal may be filed under certain limited circumstances. If the District Judge grants the putative appellant’s motion, the ‛district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days after the ...
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) implements 28 U.S.C. §2107(c), permitting the District Court to reopen and extend the time within which an appeal may be filed under certain limited circumstances. If the District Judge grants the putative appellant’s motion,…
Continue Reading

Grable — State RICO Claim with Federal Predicates

The plaintiff in Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt., LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39214 (D. N.J. May 15, 2007), filed a state RICO action with federal predicates. The defendants removed, arguing that ‛arising under“ jurisdiction existed under Grable & Sons Metal Prods. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005), due to the plaintiff ...
The plaintiff in Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C. Capital Mgmt., LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39214 (D. N.J. May 15, 2007), filed a state RICO action with federal predicates. The defendants removed, arguing that ‛arising under“ jurisdiction existed under…
Continue Reading

Final Committee Version of Federal Rule of Evidence 502 — Selective Waiver Omitted

Download associated file: Final Evidence Rule 502.pdf  On June 11, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously approved Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver). The proposal, as a ...
Download associated file: Final Evidence Rule 502.pdf  On June 11, the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously approved Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product; Limitations on Waiver). The proposal, as approved,…
Continue Reading

New York Convention — Public Policy Defense

India and the United States are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (implemented at 9 U.S.C. § 201 ff.). After the Indian defendant won an international arbitration against the American plaintiff in London, the U.S. party sued to block enforcement in Detroit federal court. Among other things, the U ...
India and the United States are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (implemented at 9 U.S.C. § 201 ff.). After the Indian defendant won an international arbitration against the American plaintiff…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court on Pleading Standards — Take Two

Just how extensively does Bell Atlantic (see our post of May 27, 2007) change the law of notice pleading? In a second pleading opinion issued per curiam last week in a pro se prisoner case, Erickson v. Pardus, 2007 WL 1582936 (U.S. June 4, 2007), the Supreme Court sounded a permissive chord. In his complaint, the prisoner plaintiff alleged th ...
Just how extensively does Bell Atlantic (see our post of May 27, 2007) change the law of notice pleading? In a second pleading opinion issued per curiam last week in a pro se prisoner case, Erickson v. Pardus, 2007 WL…
Continue Reading

Electronic Discovery Sanctions — Rule 37(f) — Restoration of Backup Tapes as Sanction

The defendant in Disability Rights Council v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Auth., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39605 (D.D.C. June 1, 2007), failed to instruct employees to retain potentially responsive emails. No litigation hold was put into effect until more than two years after the litigation commenced. Until the hold was put into effect, emails were automati ...
The defendant in Disability Rights Council v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Auth., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39605 (D.D.C. June 1, 2007), failed to instruct employees to retain potentially responsive emails. No litigation hold was put into effect until more than two…
Continue Reading
Previous494495496497498499500Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Burden Is On Noncompliant Party to Prove Harmlessness — Court Need Not Hold Hearing If Noncompliant Party Fails to Argue Harmlessness, Even When Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

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

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