<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="0.92"><channel><title>Gregory P. Joseph</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/</link><description>Observations about current developments bearing on complex litigation, U.S. and international arbitration, the Federal Rules, and occasionally state rules.</description><language>en-us</language><copyright>Copyright &amp;#169; 2007 Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC. All rights reserved.</copyright><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:23:56 +0000</pubDate><lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:23:56 +0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>May a &lt;I&gt;Pro Se&lt;/I&gt; Litigant File a Motion to Recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 144, Which Requires a Certificate of Counsel of Record?  Caselaw Split</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1499</link><description>From Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109068 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2010):  Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Klayman's ("Klayman") *** Motion to Disqualify this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 144. This represents Klayman's second attempt to disqualify this Court ...</description><pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Request for 60 Days to Respond to TRO = Implied Consent to Extend TRO for the Full Period Requested and Until Court Rules</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1498</link><description>From City of N.Y. v. Venkataram, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109776 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2010):  On September 21, 2010, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant Venkataram (or anyone acting on his behalf, in concert with him, or in conce...</description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Disqualification in Federal Court Is Determined under Federal Standard, Not State Ethical Rules</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1497</link><description>From  Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107057 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 5, 2010):  In recent years, "attorney mobility and firm mergers have increased exponentially."  Kirk v. First American Title Insurance Co.,  183 Cal. App. 4th 776, 802 (Ct. App. 2010). One consequence of t...</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Non-Lawyer&#8217;s Draft Report Protected as Work Product but Impressions, Opinions or Conclusions of Non-Lawyers &#8800; Core Work Product</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1496</link><description>From Nelsen v. Geren, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89039 (D. Or. Aug. 27, 2010):  Carrubba is not an attorney. Nevertheless,  Rule 26(b)(3) protects from discovery documents that are prepared in anticipation of litigation by a party or "its representative," which includes individuals other than attorneys. ...</description><pubDate>Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Communications Decency Act Immunizes ISP / Host from Liability under State Law for Content of Postings under unless Its System Is Designed to Facilitate Unlawful Acts</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1494</link><description>From Johnson v. Elizabeth Arden d/b/a ComplaintsBoard.com, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010):    A. Communications Decency Act  The Johnsons first argue that the district court erroneously dismissed their claims after concluding InMotion is immune under the CDA. The Johnsons contend that 47 U.S.C. § 230...</description><pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Third-Party Consumer Emails Admissible under Residual Exception &#8212; Unfair Trade Practices Litigation</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1493</link><description>From State v. Sunrise Herbal Remedies, Inc., 296 Conn. 556, 2 A.3d (Conn. Sup. Ct. 2010):   We also note that it is not clear whether the trial court would conclude that much of the purported hearsay, such as the contents of the consumer complaints, is inadmissible.  Compare Federal Trade Commission...</description><pubDate>Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Federal Court May Not Generally Sanction a Party with an Injunction against Filing State Court Litigation &#8212; Party May Be Held in Contempt for Violating Order Only If It Is Unambiguous</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1492</link><description>&#13;
From Lipin v. Sawyer, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21009 (2d Cir. Oct. 12, 2010):  Plaintiff Joan C. Lipin, proceeding pro se, appeals from a judgment dismissing her constitutional and statutory claims against defendants and holding her in civil contempt with an attendant $5,000 fine for failure to comply...</description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Rule of Unanimity Does Not Apply to National Bank Removal under 12 U.S.C. § 632 &#8212; Any Defendant May Remove, Not Just the Bank &#8212; Caselaw Split</title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1491</link><description>From  CI Int&#8217;l Fuels, Ltda. V. Helm Bank, S.A.,  707 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2010):  On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiffs moved to remand this action to state court "on an issue of first impression in Florida and the Eleventh Circuit." (Mot. 1). According to the Plaintiffs, the removal is ineffect...</description><pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Inherent Power Sanctions for Improper Final Argument </title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1489</link><description>From In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.,  2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105769 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2010):  The quoted passages from Mr. Douglas' summation demonstrated that he was arguing punitive damages and because of the Court's August 5, 2009 Opinion, he had ample notice that exemplary or punitive damages ...</description><pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Personal Representative of Estate May Sue Attorney of Decedent for Negligent Estate Planning &#8212; New York Court of Appeals </title><link>http://jnyc.6stops.com/blog/?blogID=1487</link><description>From Estate of Schneider v. Finmann,  15 N.Y.3d 306 (2010):  At issue in this appeal is whether an attorney may be held liable for damages resulting from negligent representation in estate tax planning that causes enhanced estate tax liability. We hold that a personal representative of an estate may...</description><pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>

