State court cases that are ‛related to“ bankruptcy proceedings may be removable to Federal Court, but the hurdles are high. The bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), permits removal where Federal bankruptcy jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Bankruptcy jurisdiction encompasses a far broader category of cases than just those considered to ...

Are statements in a newspaper article admissible in Federal Court for the truth? If the article is more than 20 years old, the answer is generally yes. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16) — the ‛Ancient Documents“ rule — provides that ‛[s]tatements in a document in existence twenty years or more the authenticity of which is established“ are not excluded b ...

Individuals. Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of a Federal complaint upon individuals in a foreign country. Under Rule 4(f)(1), service is permitted by internationally agreed means (such as the Hague Convention). If there is no agreement with the relevant country, Rule 4(f)(2) applies. It permits service in three ways: (A) as al ...

The Federal diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, provides for Federal jurisdiction in cases involving more than $75,000 between ‛(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States…in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a fo ...

Download associated file: IPO Rehearing.pdf  The Second Circuit today denied rehearing in the IPO Securities Litigation. The decision is attached. ...

Yesterday’s Blog discussed pre-action discovery under Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the New York statute, CPLR § 3102(c). Other states have pre-action discovery rules that may permit even more searching discovery prior to the filing of a complaint. Texas, for example, adopted its pre-action discovery rule effective January 1999. Rule 202 ...

When it comes to seeking and obtaining discovery prior to commencement of an action, there may be significant differences between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the procedures in State court, where available. In Federal practice, Rule 27 allows pre-action discovery, but only where the discovery is sought in order to ‛perpetuate testimony regarding [a] m ...

Choice of law can lead to some thorny, but important, issues. In Federal cases with state law claims based on diversity or supplemental jurisdiction, the Federal court will look to the conflicts of laws rules of the forum state. See, e.g., Klaxon v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487, 495-97 (1941) (diversity); Bancoklahoma Mtg. Corp. v. Capital Title Co., Inc., ...

There is a split in the Circuits was to whether a federal district judge may reconsider a decision to recuse. Compare Doddy v. OXY USA, Inc., 101 F.3d 448, 458 (5th Cir. 1996) (no) with United States v. Lauersen, 348 F.3d 329, 338 (2d Cir. 2003) (yes). See also Chief Judge Thomas Hogan’s recent decision in United States v. Pineda, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22300 (D. ...

Reversal of a trial judge’s decision on expert testimony is uncommon. The legal construct governing review — abuse of discretion — weighs heavily in favor of affirmance. The trial judge in United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d 645 (9th Cir. 2006), excluded expert testimony offered by the defendant concerning his mental condition and susceptibility to s ...