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

Joseph Hage Aaronson

Rule 37 Sanction of Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors — Factors Applied More Stringently When Fault Lies with Counsel Rather Than Party — Bad Faith/Willfulness/Fault Satisfied by Delay or Contumacious Conduct — Failure to Comply with Discovery Requests or Court Order Versus Merely Dilatory Conduct — Time, Money and Effort to Obtain Legally-Required Cooperation = Prejudice — Dismissal May Be First and Only Sanction

D & R Servs., LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 WL 2830660 (6th Cir. June 4, 2024): *1 D & R Services, LLC and DD & KD Services, LLC1 brought this action against their insurer, Mesa Underwriters…
Continue Reading

RICO Conspiracy: (1) Fourth Circuit’s 3-Part Test Requires Conspiring to Operate or Manage the Enterprise (Minority Rule Following Salinas) — (2) Conspirator Need Not Personally Commit Any Predicate Acts — Sufficient That S/he Agreed That One Member of the Conspiracy Commit At Least 2 Predicate Acts — Unnecessary to Identify Specific Racketeering Acts That The Defendant Agreed Would Be Committed — “The Object Of A Rico Conspiracy Is To Engage In Racketeering, Not To Commit Each Predicate Racketeering Act” — Necessary to Prove Only The Defendant Agreed to Pursue The Same Criminal Objective As the Enterprise — (4) Because A Racketeering Conspiracy Is Not Contingent On Specific Predicates, A Jury May Convict On A RICO Conspiracy Charge While Acquitting Defendant On Predicate Acts

United States v. Hunt, 99 F.4th 161 (4th Cir. 2024): This appeal arises from the prosecution of the “36th Street Bang Squad” (the “Bang Squad”), a gang that committed a string of murders, attempted murders, and assaults in 2015 and…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split — Derivative Actions — Third Circuit Joins Majority of Circuits in Holding That Dismissal Decisions on Grounds of Futility Are Subject to De Novo Review, Abandoning Abuse of Discretion — Relevant Factors in Deciding Whether De Novo or Deferential Review Is Appropriate

In re: Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. Derivative Litigation, 101 F.4th 250 (3d Cir. 2024) (en banc): We initiated en banc review of this case to consider what standard of appellate review ought to apply when a district court dismisses a …
Continue Reading

RICO: No Domestic Injury Where Investors In Ghana Placed Funds With Ghanaian Investment Firm And Those Funds Were Stolen In Ghana By A Ghanaian Family Domiciled In The US — Irrelevant That Funds Were Transmitted To US entity Owned By Ghanaian-American Defendants — Domestic Injury May Properly Be Decided On Motion To Dismiss — Rejecting A Conduct-Plus-Property Rule: That A RICO Injury Arises In The Place Where A Plaintiff’s Property Is Located At The Time Of The Racketeering Conduct

Percival Partners Ltd. v. Nduom Groupe Nduom USA, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10431, 99 F.4th 696 (4th Cir. 2024): This case began when investors in Ghana placed their funds with a Ghanaian private investment firm, hoping to recoup a …
Continue Reading

RICO: 9(b) Particularity Applies to Mail and Wire Fraud Allegations; Even Where Some Allegations Are Insufficiently Particular, A Complaint May Satisfy 9(B) If Its Allegations Are Sufficiently Particularized When Taken As A Whole; Four Elements of a § 1962(c)-Based RICO Claim — Appealability: Dismissal without Prejudice Is Appealable If No Leave to Amend Granted, Judgment Entered and Case Closed — Dismissal for Failure to Satisfy 9(b) Treated As 12(b)(6) Dismissal for Failure to State Claim for Relief — Court First Determines Whether 9(b) Satisfied And, If So, Whether 12(b)(6) Is — “Rule 12(b)(6) Motions To Dismiss Are Not Designed To Weigh Evidence Or Consider The Truth Or Falsity Of An Adequately Pled Complaint” (Good Quote)

Clinton v. Sec. Ben. Life Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 1264 (10th Cir. 2023):  [*1269]  ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are consumers who sued Defendant Security Benefit Life Insurance Company under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 …
Continue Reading

RICO Standing: As Long As Pattern of Racketeering Has Caused Harm to Plaintiff’s Business or Property, Plaintiff Need Not Have Been Injured by Multiple Predicate Acts — Injury from One of the Predicate Acts Suffices to Confer Standing

Pacmar Techs. LLC v. Kao, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231131 (D. Haw. Dec. 29, 2023): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: DEFENDANT DUKE HARTMAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED APRIL 21, 2023 [ECF 97]; DEFENDANT/CROSS-CLAIMANT CLIFFORD …
Continue Reading

Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute on Liability of Counsel, Unlike § 1927 and Rule 11, Precludes Award

Dragon Intell. Prop. LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024): Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Federal Arbitration Act — Inherent Power May Be Controlled or Overridden by Statute or Rule — When the District Court Compels Arbitration, It Must Stay and Cannot Dismiss The Federal Action — “Shall Means Shall”

Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2170, 2024 WL 2193872 (U.S. May 16, 2024): The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) sets forth procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. Section 3 of the FAA specifies that, when a dispute…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Baskin v. EC Paia LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1108 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024): ORDER Defendant-Appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees, including the request to assess fees as damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for…
Continue Reading
Previous78910111213Next

Recent Articles

“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 — Continuity: Courts Skeptical If Number of Victims and Schemes Is Limited — Untargeted Persons Who Suffer Derivative Injury 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

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice