ProfileAttorneysExpertisenewsLinksContact



 

 

James Sheinbaum is an experienced litigator and appellate lawyer representing businesses in a wide range of complex commercial matters throughout the United States in state and federal courts. Mr. Sheinbaum has represented clients in complex contract disputes, UCC Article 2 sale of goods claims, UCC Article 3 commercial paper actions, broker commission claims, securities claims (especially involving fraud, lack of supervision and improper broker conduct), complex accountings, copyright actions, trademark proceedings, domain name actions, cases involving covenants not to compete and not to solicit, intellectual property, unfair competition, adversary proceedings in Bankruptcy and obtaining and defending against preliminary injunctions. Mr. Sheinbaum has tried cases and successfully defended the results on appeal.

Mr. Sheinbaum prepares cases from the outset with both trial and appeal in mind. He understands that his clients want their matters resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible and emphasizes tactics that achieve these goals, including what he calls straight to the heart “killer” discovery requests and motions to dismiss. Many of his cases have been disposed of in whole or substantially reduced in scope due to motions.

Mr. Sheinbaum has successfully pushed the boundaries and taken positions to change the law in favor of his clients. For example, in Merchant v. Levy, 92 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 1996), he convinced the Second Circuit to abandon its prior position on the statute of limitations and adopt a position that led to dismissal of the case against his client. Another example is Torres-Negron v. J&N Records LLC, 504 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 2007), where he persuaded the First Circuit to adopt and employ in favor of his clients a subject matter jurisdictional approach to whether deposit copies were properly filed, thereby avoiding a lengthy proceeding and trial.

Mr. Sheinbaum has lectured at the Southern Regional Entertainment and Sports Law Seminar on litigation in entertainment cases and copyright.


 

 

 

 

 
Admissions
Georgia State Bar, New York State Bar, California State Bar, Florida State Bar
U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia,
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Circuit, 2nd Circuit, 5th Circuit and 11th Circuit
 
Education
Lafayette College, B.A., magna cum laude, 1976
Emory University, J.D., 1979 - Editor, Emory Law Journal, 1978-1979
  Languages
Fluent in French and Spanish
  Reported Cases
Bui v. Berman, 48 A.D.3d 287 (1st Dept. 2008) (affirming trial court’s finding that personal jurisdiction was obtained properly and order striking defendant’s answer which led to judgment in client’s favor on promissory note

International Oil Field Services Supply Corp. v. Fadeyi, 35 A.D.3d 372 (2nd Dept. 2006) (affirming successful motion in court below dismissing claims for breach of contract, fraud and unjust enrichment

Vasquez v. Torres-Negron, 434 F.Supp.2d 199 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (successfully opposing motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim

In re Broder, 265 A.D.2d 218 (1st Dept. 1999) (affirming referee’s decision that client Broder was properly appointed temporary receiver of corporation during dissolution proceedings)

Beal v. Beal, 196 A.D.2d 471 (2nd Dept. 1993) (affirming lower court’s appointment of receiver and sequestration of defendant’s assets and awarding attorney’s fees

Nesom v. Tri Hawk Intern., Inc., 1992 WL 112230 (E.D.La. May 13, 1992) (granting Tri Hawk’s motion for summary judgment dismissing claim for mental distress resulting from surgery using product distributed by Tri Hawk

Rodgers v. Roulette Records, Inc., 677 F.Supp. 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (motion successfully dismissing claims for breach of contract, conversion, fraudulent inducement and fraud, accounting, constructive trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and rescission, leaving only a claim for quantum meruit which ultimately resulted in decision for acknowledged amount due of less than $11,000 as reported after trial in 1990 WL 17616 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 1990).