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

April 2015

Federal Jurisdiction — Principal Place of Business of an Inactive Corporation — Circuit Split

Snyder v. Advanced Academics, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44014 (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2015): A. Circuit Split: Principal Place of Business of an Inactive Corporation There is a split among the circuits on the issue of how to determine the PPB of a "dissolved" or "inactive" corporation ...
Snyder v. Advanced Academics, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44014 (W.D. Okla. April 3, 2015): A. Circuit Split: Principal Place of Business of an Inactive Corporation There is a split among the circuits on the issue of how to determine …
Continue Reading

Email Authentication by Distinctive Characteristics: Names of Parties & Other Employees of Involved Entities, Email Addresses, Dates — Summary Charts: 4-Factor Test & Instruction

United States v. Hoffman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42818 (E.D. La. April 1, 2015): Before the Court are two motions: (1) the United States' motion in limine for pretrial determination of admissibility [*2]  of emails; and (2) the United States' motion to admit summary witness testimony and summary exhibits. For the rea ...
United States v. Hoffman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42818 (E.D. La. April 1, 2015): Before the Court are two motions: (1) the United States' motion in limine for pretrial determination of admissibility [*2]  of emails; and (2) the United States'…
Continue Reading

Website Authenticated by Affidavits of Persons Who Accessed Pages Plus Contents of Printouts — Instagram Comments Relevant for Use of Allegedly Generic Term Regardless of Truth of Commenter’s Attitude Toward Term

Camowraps, LLC v. Quantum Digital Ventures LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16091 (E.D. La. Feb. 10, 2015): Plaintiff, Camowraps, LLC ("Camowraps"), is "a leader in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing adhesive vinyl films and products," "which are often sold in camouflage patterns . . . [and] us ...
Camowraps, LLC v. Quantum Digital Ventures LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16091 (E.D. La. Feb. 10, 2015): Plaintiff, Camowraps, LLC ("Camowraps"), is "a leader in the business of manufacturing, selling, and distributing adhesive vinyl films and products," "which are often…
Continue Reading

Texts on Defendant’s Phone Requesting Cocaine Not Hearsay when Offered to Prove His State of Mind — That He Had Drugs in His Possession and Was Aware of a Forthcoming Shipment (Also: Verbal Act)

State v. Whitfield, 2015 S.D. LEXIS 45 (S.D. Sup. Ct. Apr. 1, 2015): 1. Text Messages  [*P12]  Whitfield argues that the two text messages from JKenny were inadmissible hearsay and the admission of the messages prejudiced him. The messages were hearsay, Whitfield contends, because the ...
State v. Whitfield, 2015 S.D. LEXIS 45 (S.D. Sup. Ct. Apr. 1, 2015): 1. Text Messages  [*P12]  Whitfield argues that the two text messages from JKenny were inadmissible hearsay and the admission of the messages prejudiced him. The messages were …
Continue Reading

What Constitutes “Appearing” in an Action? Under FDCPA, Attorney’s Fees Are Awardable to a Prevailing Plaintiff’s Lawyer Who Was Not Admitted Even Pro Hac If Lawyer Did Not Appear Physically, Sign Papers or Serve as Exclusive Contact

Waite v VCG Clark Cnty. Collection Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2015): A prevailing plaintiff in an FDCPA action is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Where, as here, one of the plaintiff's attorneys was not admitted to practice in the forum distric ...
Waite v VCG Clark Cnty. Collection Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2015): A prevailing plaintiff in an FDCPA action is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Where, as …
Continue Reading

Texts Authenticated: Phone in Defendant’s Possession on Arrest — He Answered It while Detained, Called It His — Name of Third Party He Said Owned It Was Named in Contact List while He Was Listed as “Me” — Contains Photos of Him

Jones v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3139 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015): A. Authenticity of information from mobile telephone Jones frames his challenge to the admission of information from the phone as an issue of the evidence's authenticity. As a condition precedent to admissibility, the proponent of the ...
Jones v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3139 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2015): A. Authenticity of information from mobile telephone Jones frames his challenge to the admission of information from the phone as an issue of the evidence's authenticity.…
Continue Reading

RICO — Continuity — Duration of >1 Year in 7th Circuit — Number of Mailings May Be No Indication of Continuity of Underlying Fraudulent Activity — Only Predicates Count Toward, and Cover-Up Acts Don’t Extend, Duration (Good Quotes)

Goldring v. Regas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35552 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2015): Generally, the predicate acts underlying a "one-shot scheme" must occur over the course of more than a year in order to form a pattern. Midwest Grinding, 976 F.2d at 1024 (collecting cases where periods of "several months ...
Goldring v. Regas, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35552 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2015): Generally, the predicate acts underlying a "one-shot scheme" must occur over the course of more than a year in order to form a pattern. Midwest Grinding,…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication — Custodian of Records from Email Service That Emails Were Sent or Received from 3 Addresses (803(6)) + Testimony from Recipients That They Received Them + Name of Sender as Reflected on Emails

United States v. Gal, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4999 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015): Carpenter argues that an affidavit filed by Yahoo! Inc.'s custodian of records under Rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence supplied insufficient foundation to admit a number of emails as evidence that Carpenter sent the emails to investors. H ...
United States v. Gal, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4999 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015): Carpenter argues that an affidavit filed by Yahoo! Inc.'s custodian of records under Rule 902(11) of the Federal Rules of Evidence supplied insufficient foundation to admit …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Private Business Website’s Discussion of Methods of Payment Accepted

Frankfort GGNSC Frankfort, LLC v. Tracy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41466 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2015): Doris Christopher, a former resident of the Golden Living Center facility in Frankfort, Kentucky, signed an arbitration agreement prior to moving into the facility. Sadly, Defendants allege that Ms. Christopher suffered physical and emotiona ...
Frankfort GGNSC Frankfort, LLC v. Tracy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41466 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2015): Doris Christopher, a former resident of the Golden Living Center facility in Frankfort, Kentucky, signed an arbitration agreement prior to moving into the facility.…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Awardable for Objectively Unreasonable Conduct Manifesting a Reckless Disregard of Counsel’s Duties to the Court (10th Circuit)

Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3082 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2015): In addition to asking for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the defendants also asked for fees from Dorsey under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Section 1927 provides: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of ...
Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3082 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2015): In addition to asking for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the defendants also asked for fees from Dorsey under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Section…
Continue Reading
123

Recent Articles

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

Inherent Power — Circumstantial Evidence — Fact That Bad Faith May Be Shown by Establishing That Conduct Was So Egregious It Was Necessarily Committed in Bad Faith Does Not Mean That Bad Faith Must Be The Sole Explanation for The Bad Conduct

RICO Causation: Testing Labs’ Misstatements As to Alcohol Tests’ Efficacy Not Communicated to Plaintiffs’ Employers Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Professional Harm

Supreme Court: Standing — When The Government Prohibits Or Impedes Company A from Using Company B’s Product, Both Are Objects of the Government’s Action And Have Standing to Contest It — “To Demonstrate Standing, Plaintiffs Must Answer A Basic Question—‘What’s It To You?’” (Good Quote) — Expert Evidence Not Required to Establish Standing — “Judges Are Not Required To Exhibit A Naiveté From Which Ordinary Citizens Are Free’” (Good Quote)

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

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