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

March 27, 2024

(1) Sua Sponte Sanctions (3d Cir.): Reasonableness, Not Bad Faith, Is The Standard — Implicitly Rejecting the 2d Cir.’s Akin-to-Contempt Standard — (2) Sua Sponte Sanctions Require Extra Care Because of The Absence of the 21-Day Safe Harbor — (3) Appealability — Even Absent a Reprimand Or Other Sanction, A Court’s Finding of Sanctionable Conduct Injures A Lawyer’s Reputation Sufficiently to Confer Standing to Appeal — (4) Even Though Intent Is Not Required to Violate Rule 11, It Is Relevant to the Decision Whether to Sanction And, If So, What Sanction to Impose — (5) Rule 11 Imposes a Duty of Candor And Is Violated by Not Only by Misrepresentations But Also by Misleading Statements, Half-Truths, Inconsistencies, Mischaracterizations, Exaggerations, Omissions, Evasions And Failures to Correct Known Misimpressions — (6) Candor Is Critical in Ex Parte and Non-Adversarial Proceedings Where Both Sides Agree — (7) “Mild Sanctions” — Requiring an Apology in Writing And Ordering Better Conduct in Similar Cases in the Future

Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney's Off., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642, 95 F ...
Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642, 95 F.4th 140 (3d Cir. 2024): Courts rely on lawyers’ honesty; lawyers may not mislead them. But the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office did just that.…
Continue Reading

Expert (702) vs. Lay Opinion (701) Testimony: “The Line Between Expert And Lay Testimony Is Not Always Sharp” (Good Quote) — Owner of New Business Not Allowed to Offer Lay Opinion As to Lost Future Profits Where Basis Extended Beyond Knowledge He Possessed Due to His Position in the Company (His Own Perception) And Beyond The Reasoning Process of an Average Person in Everyday Life — Sandbagging with Late Opinion: “The Proper Function Of Rebuttal Evidence Is To Contradict, Impeach Or Defuse The Impact Of The Evidence Offered By An Adverse Party” (Good Quote) — Where Opinion Being Rebutted Is Not Admitted, There Is Nothing to Rebut —“ The Duty To Supplement Cannot Be Transformed Into A Right To Ambush Just Before Trial” (Good Quote)

Chi. Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357, 94 F.4th 588 (7th Cir. 2024 ...
Chi. Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357, 94 F.4th 588 (7th Cir. 2024): This appeal presents a host of issues arising from an effort to prove lost profits for a business that…
Continue Reading

Right to File Motions, Pleadings, Appeals: Absent Extraordinary Circumstances, Like a History of Litigation Abuse Or Failure to Comply with Sanctions, a Court Has No Power to Prevent a Party from Filing Pleadings, Motions or Appeals — Construing Pre-Motion Letters As Motions OK for Non-Dispositive Motions Or Denial of Dispositive Motions — It Is Also OK If Dispositive Motion Is Predominantly Legal And Complaint Has Substantial Deficiencies — Granting Summary Judgment on Reconsideration of Prior Denial Based on Premotion Letters Only Reversed for Lack of Due Process

Kowalchuck v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4533 94 F.4th 210 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2024): In this case, plaintiff-appellant John Kowalchuck sued his former employer, defendant-appellee Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”),
Kowalchuck v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4533 94 F.4th 210 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2024): In this case, plaintiff-appellant John Kowalchuck sued his former employer, defendant-appellee Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act …
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

RICO: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

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