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 12, 2024

Sanctions: Rule 11 Does Not Create an Independent Cause of Action

Kaetz v. United States of Am., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14146 (3d Cir. June 11, 2024) (unpublished): OPINION* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute bin ...
Kaetz v. United States of Am., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14146 (3d Cir. June 11, 2024) (unpublished): OPINION* * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER …
Continue Reading

“RICO Is a Judge’s Nightmare” — “The Requisite RICO Pleading Standards Are Far from Explicit, And The RICO Jurisprudence Offers Courts (And Plaintiffs) Little Guidance” (Good Quotes) — Common Elements of § 1962(a), (c) and (d)-Based Claims — Closed-End Continuity: Duration > 1 Year = Substantial Period of Time (E.g., 2 or 4) — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury from Injury to Immediate RICO Victim Do Not Add to the Number of Victims Considered for Continuity Purposes — Open Ended Continuity Can Be Established by Showing Defendant Commits Predicate Acts As “Regular Way of Doing Business” — Citing the Existence of Other Lawsuits Alleging Similar Predicates ≠ Pleading Facts Demonstrating Defendant’s Commission of Similar Predicates Against Others

D&T Partners, L.L.C. v. Baymark Partners Mgmt., LLC, 94 F.4th 198 (5th Cir. 2024): A group of individuals allegedly sought to steal the assets and trade secrets of an e-commerce company. They did so with shell entities, corrupt lending practices, and a fraudulent bankruptcy. The question in this case is whether the scheme, as alleged, violates the Racketeer Influenced and Co ...
D&T Partners, L.L.C. v. Baymark Partners Mgmt., LLC, 94 F.4th 198 (5th Cir. 2024): A group of individuals allegedly sought to steal the assets and trade secrets of an e-commerce company. They did so with shell entities, corrupt lending practices,…
Continue Reading

RICO: Personal Injury (Depression, Loss of Love and Affection) ≠ Injury to Business or Property — While Inability to Fulfill Employment Contract or Pursue Valuable Employment Opportunities as a Result of a RICO Violation Constitute Injury to Business or Property, Inability to Work Due to Emotional Trauma from RICO Violation Perpetrated on Another Is an Inactionable, Derivative Injury Too Remote from the RICO Violation — Statute of Limitations/Injury Discovery Rule — SOL Accrues When Plaintiff Knows Or Should Know of His or Her Injury, Regardless of Whether Plaintiff Knows the Injury Is Part of a Pattern of Racketeering — Separate Accrual Rule: New Cause of Action Accrues for Each New, Independent Injury, Even If RICO Violation Occurred > 4 Years Earlier — Private Citizens Cannot Compel a Criminal Prosecution Because They Lack a Cognizable Interest in the Prosecution of Another

Douglas v. Kalanta, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10054, 2024 WL 1795160 (9th Cir. April 25, 2024) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiffs Richard William Douglas, Jr. ...
Douglas v. Kalanta, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10054, 2024 WL 1795160 (9th Cir. April 25, 2024) (unpublished) MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiffs Richard William Douglas, Jr., and Christine Anne Hurtt filed a complaint on October 18, 2021, alleging that defendants …
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

Rule 11 Sanctions — Even If Court Invites Sanctions Motion, Safe Harbor Must Be Complied With — If Safe Harbor Is Not Provided, Court May Not Proceed Sua Sponte without Affording the Due Process Required by Rule 11(c)(3): Issuing a Show Cause Order Why Conduct Specifically Described In The Order Has Not Violated — The Show Cause Order Need Not Be A Separate Order — Appellee’s Request That Appellate Court Consider Alternate Ground of Inherent Power Sanctions Fails Due to Lack of Notice That Inherent Power Sanctions, and Therefore Bad Faith, Were At Issue

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal That Has “Some Arguable Basis” Either in Law or Fact—A Low Bar—Is Not Frivolous — “Simply Quibbl[ing]”/Raising Factual Disputes Insufficient to Obtain Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Imposes FRAP 38 Sanctions Only If An Improper Purpose Underlies the Appeal — Simply Seeking Sanctions Below (Unsuccessfully) And On Appeal Is Not Per Se Violative of § 1927

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