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

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

Vega v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (7th Cir. July 29, 2024): *1 Caryn Shaw, an attorney for the Plaintiffs in this case, allegedly assaulted opposing counsel Lisa Dreishmire after a heated deposition at the Chicago …
Continue Reading

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

Kennard Law P.C. v. United Airlines, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19962 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* *1 After granting summary judgment for the defendant employer in an employment discrimination lawsuit, the district court sanctioned the…
Continue Reading

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

Wershe v. City of Detroit, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20145 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Plaintiff Richard Wershe, Jr., sued the City of Detroit and various former state and federal law enforcement officials on July 20, 2021,…
Continue Reading

RICO: “The RICO Statute Is A Very Powerful, But Tricky, Tool” (Good Quote) — The Seven Elements of a RICO Claim, Before Even Reaching Injury and Causation — “Courts Must Flush Out Frivolous RICO Completes At An Early Stage Of The Litigation” (Good Quote) — 9(b) Obligations for Fraud-Based RICO Claims — The 3 Features of the Structure Requirement for the Enterprise Element — Factors Analyzed in Determining Whether Association-in-Fact Enterprise Pled — Hub-and-Spoke Structure ≠ Enterprise —Merely Taking Directions Insufficient for §1962(c) Liability —Operation and Management Test = Low Hurdle —Commission of Predicate Acts by Enterprise Insufficient — RICO Persons Must Commit the Acts —2-Year Minimum for Closed-End Continuity in Second Circuit — Horizontal and Vertical Relatedness: Requirements

Keyu Long v. Shunhuang Zhuang, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141434 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TARYN A. MERKL, United States Magistrate Judge: Keyu Long, named personally and derivatively on behalf of J Navi De Fund One LLC,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Appealability: Time to Appeal Runs from Entry of Order Quantifying Sanctions, Not from Subsequent Entry of Judgment Restating Same Fee Awards — No Separate Document Setting Forth Judgment Required under Rule 58 Because Rule 11 Award Falls within 58(a)(3) Exception — Fact Judgment Entered Irrelevant to Question of Timeliness of Appeal — Failure to Request a Hearing on Sanctions = Waiver of Any Right to One; FRAP 38 Sanctions Warranted When Result Is Obvious Or Appellant’s Argument Is Wholly without Merit

Upchurch v. O’Brien, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19560 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024): *1 For years Timothy Upchurch waged a relentless and disturbing campaign of harassment against his neighbors, Timothy and Margaret O’Brien, in a dispute over a claimed easement …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Barring Lead Counsel from Delivering Closing Argument at Trial Within Trial Court’s Discretion as Sanction for Serial Misconduct, Including Deposition Misconduct, Obstructionist Discovery Tactics; Scheduling Order Violations, Disregard of In Limine Orders and Ignoring a Sustained Objection

Rightchoice Managed Care, Inc. v. Hosp. Partners, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18599 (8th Cir. July 29, 2024): *1 Beau Gertz, Mark Blake, SeroDynamics, and LabMed Services (collectively, the Sero Defendants) perpetrated a pass-through billing scheme for lab tests billed…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11(c)(2) “Nonfrivolous Argument for Extending, Modifying, or Reversing Existing Law or For Establishing New Law”: Argument Barred by Supreme Court or Circuit Precedent “Not Per Se Sanctionable—An Attempt to Distinguish One’s Case … Is Enough” —(2) Mere Loss on Summary Judgment Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Sanctions Are Apt: Absence of Genuine Issue of Material Fact Does Not Negate Existence of Plausible Factual and Legal Contentions

Mazurek v. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., 2024 WL 3632732 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024): Opinion Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judge. *1 A group of employees sued their employer, Metalcraft of Mayville, for failing to pay them for time spent working just…
Continue Reading

RICO Pleading: Racketeering Activity Consists Exclusively of Crimes Listed in § 1961(1); Conclusory References to Crimes in Complaint Inadequate; Generic References To “Fraud” without Specifying Type of Frauds Listed In § 1961 That Each Defendant Allegedly Committed Is Inadequate; Fiduciary Duty Breach, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Defamation Are Not Predicate Acts

Lopez v. COMPA Indus., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18176 (10th Cir. July 24, 2024) (unpublished): *1 Samuel Lopez, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s order dismissing his various claims against Compa Industries, Inc., several of Compa’s officers…
Continue Reading

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

Laurel Gardens LLC v. McKenna, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1594, 2024 WL 3220401 (3d Cir. June 28, 2024) (unpublished):   OPINION** JORDAN, Circuit Judge *1 In this civil RICO case, plaintiffs Laurel Gardens, LLC, American Winter Services, LLC,…
Continue Reading

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 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

In re Sanford Law Firm, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 15747, 2024 WL 3217609 (8th Cir. June 28, 2024): Judges: Before SMITH, Chief Judge,1 COLLOTON2 and BENTON, Circuit Judges. Sanford Law Firm (SLF) and Josh Sanford (Sanford) appeal …
Continue Reading
Previous1234567Next

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