

COMMERCIAL
LITIGATION |
Commercial
Paper |
|
Employment
Disputes |
Intellectual
Property |
Sales |
Securities |
|
|
 |
 |
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
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 |
| |
Lafayette College, B.A., magna
cum laude, 1976
Emory University, J.D., 1979 - Editor, Emory Law Journal,
1978-1979
|
| |
Fluent in French and Spanish |
| |
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). |
|