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

February 15, 2024

Rule 11 Sanctions Reversed Under Demanding Plain Error Standard Where (1) Sanctions Motion Was Filed After the District Court Issued Its Decision, In Violation of Rule 11’s Safe Harbor (Rule 11(c)(2)) and (2) The District Court Failed to Describe The Offending Conduct And Furnish An Explanation for the Sanctions As Required by Rule 11(c)(6); (3) Good Quote: “Once an action is dismissed, a party may no longer move for sanctions under Rule 11”

Triantos v. Guaetta & Benson, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 91 F.4th 556 (1st Cir. 2024): After Deutsche Bank National Trust Company foreclosed on and sold his home, Nicholas Triantos sued various parties, including the law firm that represen ...
Triantos v. Guaetta & Benson, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 2038, 91 F.4th 556 (1st Cir. 2024): After Deutsche Bank National Trust Company foreclosed on and sold his home, Nicholas Triantos sued various parties, including the law firm that…
Continue Reading

(1) Sanctions for Nonexistent Case (Generated by Artificial Intelligence) Cited to Court of Appeals: Referral to Grievance Panel and Disclosure of Opinion to Foreign Client, Translated; (2) Second Circuit Mistakenly Relies on Rule 11, Which Does Not Apply in Courts of Appeal, Rather Than FRAP 38, Inherent Power of the Court or Other Applicable Sanctions Power; (3) Rule 37 and Rule 41(b) Dismissal Factors (2d Cir.); (4) Collecting Local Rules Pertaining to Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings

Park v. Kim, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024): Per Curiam: Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from the August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Ch ...
Park v. Kim, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1996, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024): Per Curiam: Plaintiff-Appellant Minhye Park appeals from the August 25, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Sanctions: Dismissal for Single Failure to Attend Pretrial Conference Reversed — Pattern of Contumacious Conduct, Consideration of Lesser Sanctions, Warning Or, At Least<A Record Showing Relevant Factors Weight Required

Vivaldi Servicios de Seguridad, Inc. v. Maiso Grp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461, 2024 WL 615605 (1st Cir. Feb. 14, 2024): *1 May a district court dismiss a case for counsel’s unexcused failure to appear at the final pretrial confer ...
Vivaldi Servicios de Seguridad, Inc. v. Maiso Grp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3461, 2024 WL 615605 (1st Cir. Feb. 14, 2024): *1 May a district court dismiss a case for counsel’s unexcused failure to appear at the final pretrial…
Continue Reading

Pro Se Litigant Sanctioned $10,000 For Filing Brief (Prepared by a “Consultant”) Containing AI-Generated Fictitious Cases

Kruse v. Karlen, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 62 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2024): Opinion Introduction Jonathan R. Karlen ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court's grant of final summary judgment to Molly Kruse ("Respon ...
Kruse v. Karlen, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 62 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2024): Opinion Introduction Jonathan R. Karlen (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s grant of final summary judgment to Molly Kruse (“Respondent”). Due to numerous fatal briefing deficiencies…
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

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