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

Greg Joseph

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 LEXIS 13420, 2023 WL 3739095 (5th Cir. May 31, 2023) (unpublished) PER CURIAM:* *   This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.   *1…
Continue Reading

Purposes Of Rule 37 Sanctions — Non-Exclusive Factors Guiding Exercise Of Discretion As To Whether And To What Extent To Impose Rule 37 Sanctions — Deeming Facts Admitted Requires Proof Of Willfulness, Bad Faith Or Culpability (2d Cir.) — Non-Compliance Is Willful When Order Is Clear And Understood, And Non-Compliance Is Not Due To Factors Beyond The Party’s Control — Contempt Standards And Burdens Or Proof Under Rule 37

Martinenko v. 212 Steakhouse, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64562, 2023 WL 2919559 (S.D.N.Y. April 12, 2023) (Report and Recommendation): *1 This is an action for unpaid wages and other violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and…
Continue Reading

First Impression — Removal — Appellate Jurisdiction to Review Remand Orders: Notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), Court of Appeals Has Jurisdiction to Review Remand Order Citing §1447(e) Where That Statute Is Not Actually The Basis of The Order But Prudential Considerations (Abstention) Are— § 1447(e) Cannot Serve As A Basis To Remand If The Plaintiff Is Not Seeking To Add A Party Whose Joinder Would Destroy Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

LeChase Constr. Servs., LLC v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6976 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2023) Argonaut Insurance Company [*3]  (“Argonaut”) appeals from an order of the district court (Wolford, J.) remanding this breach-of-bond action, brought by LeChase …
Continue Reading

Discovery Violations Should Ordinarily Be Punished Under Rules 26(g) And 37, Not Inherent Power — Sanctions Should Be Tailored Because Violations Occur Along A Continuum of Fault — Three-Factor Test to Determine Whether Sanctions For Non-Production Are Apt (Second Circuit) — Producing Some Relevant Documents Is No Excuse For Not Producing All/Producing Drafts Does Not Excuse Nonproduction of Finals (Good Quote) — There Is No Carve-Out From The Duty To Produce For Publicly-Filed Information (Good Quote) — Duty To Produce Includes Subsequently-Created Documents (Documents Created After Discovery Response) — Factors In Choosing The Appropriate Sanction — Purposes Of Discovery Sanctions — Proportionality: Need for Sanction to Be Tailored to Remedy the Prejudice Suffered

AU New Haven, LLC v. YKK Corp., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49913, 2023 WL 2612204 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023): INTRODUCTION Over the course of the long history of this case, Plaintiffs maintained that they held patents issued in both …
Continue Reading

Administrative Closure of A Case Is A Tool of Docket Management Outside the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Used to Shelve A Pending But Dormant Matter —District Court Order Administratively Closing A Case Is Not An Appealable Final Order, But An Order Denying A Motion to Reopen Is — “A Case Is Deemed To Be Final When A District Court Disassociates Itself From A Case” (Good Quote) — Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) Does Not Confer Authority to Dismiss A Case; Other Power Must Be Invoked — Rule 41(b) Dismissal: Sixth Circuit Factors

Rodriguez v. Hirshberg Acceptance Corp., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 6006 (6th Cir. Mar. 14, 2023): District courts, it is broadly accepted, enjoy tremendous freedom in managing their caseload. That flexibility stems in part from the fact that no two district…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Available for Needlessly Prolonging Deposition Through Irrelevant Questions Even If Movant Did Not Move for A Protective Order under Rule 30 — No § 1927 Sanctions Imposable on Law Firms (Majority Rule – Circuit Split) — “Whether A Defendant Offers To Settle A Case Is Of Questionable Value In Determining Whether The Plaintiff’s Claims Are Frivolous” (Good Quote)

Vaughan v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5684, 2023 WL 2423494 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2023): In this case, the district court awarded fees against Vaughan’s attorneys after finding that they unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the…
Continue Reading
Previous19202122232425Next

Recent Articles

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

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

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