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

June 3, 2023

Affirmative Defense Properly Considered On Dismissal Motion If It Is Clear From The Face Of The Complaint And Matters Of Which The Court May Take Judicial Notice That The Claim Is Barred As A Matter Of Law

Lewis v. M&T Bank, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6596, 2022 WL 775758 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgm ...
Lewis v. M&T Bank, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6596, 2022 WL 775758 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED…
Continue Reading

Claims Or Defenses Not Defended In Opposition To Dispositive Motion Are Abandoned — No Abuse Of Discretion To Deny Leave To Amend Where Request Is Conclusory And Requested Only In Brief

Farag v. XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7950 (2d Cir. April 4, 2023) (Unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of ...
Farag v. XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7950 (2d Cir. April 4, 2023) (Unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED…
Continue Reading

RICO: Because Cannabis Is Illegal Under Federal Law, Damage To It Is Not Injury To Business Or Property Within 18 USC 1964(c)

Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023): The question presented in this case is w ...
Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023): The question presented in this case is whether Appellants, a cannabis entrepreneur and two cannabis businesses, have standing to bring claims arising pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) And 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions: Fifth Circuit Factors For (i) Case-Ending Sanctions, (ii) 37(b)(2) Sanctions Generally, (iii) Expert Exclusion And (iv) Failure To Designate Or Disclose Witness Testimony — Preclusion, Including Exclusion Of Experts, Is Not As Drastic As Dismissal or Default — The Fact That Preclusion May Have The Legal Consequence Of Dismissal Does Not Affect The Appropriateness Of The Sanction — If Preclusion Is An Appropriate Sanction, It Is Unlikely to Be Reversed Even If It Results In Dismissal

Williams v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13420, 2023 WL 3739095 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:*
Williams v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13420, 2023 WL 3739095 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *   This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.   *1…
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Appeal That Is Weak — “Borderline Frivolous” — Test Is Whether Appellant Should Have Known the Appeal Had Absolutely No Chance of Success — (2) Lay Opinion Testimony under Rule 701: Nub of Helpfulness Requirement Is to Exclude Testimony When the Witness Is No Better Suited Than the Jury to Assess the Issue; (3) Appeals: No Appeal from Denial of Motion for Judgment As a Matter of Law Unless Appellant Made That Motion Before Case Was Submitted to Jury

(1) § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct After Obtaining Verdict: Filing Lis Pendens Based on False Statements and in Violation of Governing Law, Filing Fraudulent Abstracts of Judgment That Represented They Had Been Court-Issued; (2) Rule 37 Sanctions for Baseless Motion to Compel Required Unless Target Shows That the Motion Was Substantially Justified Or Other Circumstances Make An Award Of Expenses Unjust

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (10th Circuit) — Rule 37(d) Sanctions Apply Without Regard to Whether the Court Has Ordered the Delinquent Party to Appear for His, Her or Their Deposition

Rule 37 Dismissal Factors (Sixth Circuit) — Refusal to Answer Deposition Questions on Relevancy Grounds Is Not Valid Rule 30(c)(2) — Pro Se Deponent’s Attendance At Zoom Deposition While Driving A Semi, Refusing to Answer Questions, Inter Alia, Held Contumacious

Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Rule 37 Preclusion: Rule 26 Does Not Require Disclosure of Legal Theories Underlying Damages Computations Provided Pursuant to 26(a)(1)(A)(i)

Rule 37 Sanctions: (1) Forfeiture of Objections to Produce Specific Categories of Documents (Including Tax Returns, Social Media Passwords) as Sanction for Violation of Discovery Order — (2) Default Judgment for Multiple Violations of Discovery Orders — (3) Ninth Circuit’s 5-Factor Test for Dismissal or Default Sanction — (4) Three Additional Factors Considered by Court of Appeals in Assessing Whether Lesser Sanctions Were Adequately Considered — (5) District Court Need Not Recite Each Factor: It Suffices If Record Permits Appellate Court to Apply Them — (6) Public Policy Favoring Disposition of Cases on the Merits Is Not Dispositive Where At Least 4 Factors “Support,” Or 3 Factors “Strongly Support,” Dismissal/Default — (7) And Lends Little Support to A Party Whose Conduct Impedes Adjudication on the Merits — (7) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38, § 1927 and Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue for Multiple Misstatements Of Counsel At Oral Argument

Electronic Spoliation Sanctions: “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) Means Willful Destruction of Evidence to Avoid Its Discovery by an Adverse Party — Relevant Circumstantial Evidence in Determining “Intent to Deprive” — Rule 37(e)(2)(C)’s Standards Trump Circuit’s Multi-Factor Test for Determining Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate — No Prejudice Required for 37(e)(2) Sanctions Because Intent to Deprive Creates Inference the Loss of Information Favored the Spoliator

Sanctions and Appealability — Fifth Circuit’s 2023 Survey of Circuit Cases Concerning Whether Judgment of Dismissal As a Sanction Bars Review of Earlier Sanctions Orders Due to Lack of Jurisdiction or Whether The Decision to Review Pre-Dismissal Sanctions Orders Is Prudential

Sanctions and Appealability — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal Imposed As Sanction under Rules 16(f), 37(b) and 41(b) and Are Unappealable — Courts of Appeal Differ As to Whether This Lack of Reviewability Is Jurisdictional or Discretionary (Jurisdictional in Second Circuit)

Sanctions Enforcement and Appealability: Failure to Pay Rule 37 Sanctions and Otherwise Comply with Discovery Orders Leads to Dismissal under Rule 41(b) — Second Circuit Factors for Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute or Comply with Court Orders — Belated, Partial Compliance with Orders Does Not Deprive District Court of Discretion to Dismiss Based on Continuing Non-Compliance with Other Aspects of Orders — “Hopelessly Belated Compliance” with Court Orders Not Accorded Great Weight — Prior Sanctions Orders Do Not Merge into Judgment of Dismissal under Rule 41(b) And Are Unreviewable

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

© 2024 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice