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 15(c)(1)(C) — Substitution of a Named Defendant for a Doe Defendant Does Not Relate Back — It Is a Change in Parties, Not a Substitution of Parties (Naming a Doe Defendant Is Not a Mistake Concerning the Proper Party’s Identity)

Reiner v. Canale, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42301 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2018): Plaintiff TC Reiner first brought this copyright suit, alleging both infringement and wrongful removal of copyright information, against Saginaw Valley State University ("SVSU"), the Saginaw…
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication by 902(11) Certification + Contents — Issue Isn’t Whether Jury Could Find Party Wasn’t Author But Whether It Could Find S/he Was — Rap Lyric As Adoptive Admission—“Always” As Encompassing Past Conduct

United States v. Recio, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5753 (4th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018): A jury found Larry Recio guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At trial, over his objection, the district court admitted into evidence …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence Not Permitted on Suppression Motion in Mass. — Court-Initiated JN Requires Notice to Parties & Opportunity to Be Heard (Note: Mass. Has Special Rule 201(c) Prohibiting JN of Element of Offense in Criminal Case)

Commonwealth v. Hilaire, 92 Mass. App. Ct. 784, 2018 Mass. App. LEXIS 21 (2018): At issue is whether there was reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant and search his backpack several  [*785]  hours after an armed home invasion had …
Continue Reading

Appeals—Jurisdiction: Dist. Ct. Cannot Extend 59(e) Deadline & Party Cannot Rely on An Extension Given — Untimely 59(e) Motion Should Be Deemed 60(b) Motion — Rule 11 Sanctions Denied for Lack of Separate Motion & Failure to Afford Safe Harbor

Colter v. Omni Ins. Co., 2018 WL 898679 (4th Cir. Feb. 15, 2018): PER CURIAM: Allison Colter appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and denying her motion to amend her…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Briefs/Filings in Different Court OK, But Not for Truth — No §1927 Sanctions for Conduct in Another Court — Disqualification: Standing Requires Prior Attorney-Client Relationship Or Breach That “Infects the Litigation”

Smith v. Cook, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37615 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2018): ORDER: (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS; AND (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Doc. Nos. 22, 32) Pending before the Court…
Continue Reading

The Exceptional-Case Standard for Awarding Attorney’s Fees under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1117(a)) Is Identical to the Exceptional-Case Standard Applied in Patent Cases (under 35 U.S.C. §285) — 11th Circuit Joins 3d, 4th, 5th, 9th & Fed Circuits

Tobinick v. Novella, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5845 (11th Cir. Mar. 8, 2018): Dr. Edward Tobinick appeals the District Court's award of attorney's fees to Dr. Steven Novella. Dr. Tobinick argues both that the District Court's decision to award…
Continue Reading
Previous99100101102103104105Next

Recent Articles

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

Electronic Spoliation/Rule 37(e): (1) Finding of Recklessness But Neither Gross Negligence Nor Willfulness in Loss of Video Evidence Precludes Rule 37(e)(2)’s Severest Sanctions Because (i) No Intent to Deprive and (ii) Rule 37(e)(2) Displaces District Court’s Power to Invoke Inherent Power to Impose Those Sanctions — (2) Appellate Review = Abuse of Discretion, With The Caveat That Whether The District Court Applied The Correct Legal Standards Is Reviewed De Novo — (3) Inherent Power Is Often Available As An Alternate Source of Sanctioning Power But Can Be Limited by Rule or Statute, Something Which Courts Do Not Lightly Presume — (4) The Text of Rule 37(e)(2), As Confirmed by the Advisory Committee Note, Displaces Inherent Power to Impose the Sanctions Specified in the Rule or Any More Severe Sanctions — (5) “Intent to Deprive” in Rule 37(e)(2) = “The Willful Destruction Of Evidence With The Purpose Of Avoiding Its Discovery By An Adverse Party” — (6) Appellate Standing Conferred by Virtue of Issuance of Sanctions Regardless of Merits Outcome — (7) Value of Advisory Committee Notes in Interpreting Rules Enacted without Change Despite General Reticence to Rely on Legislative History

RICO: (1) Plaintiff Need Not Suffer Injury from Each Predicate Act to Establish Standing, And The Pattern May Include Predicates As to Which No Plaintiff Has Standing — (2) 7 Elements of a Civil RICO Claim (2d Circuit Articulation) Which Must Be Established As to Each Defendant — (3) Requirements of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise — (4) Each Defendant Must Personally Commit 2 or More Predicate Acts — (5) Pattern of Racketeering Activity: Horizontal and Vertical Elements — (6) No Requirement That All Members of a RICO Enterprise Joined at Inception — Can Join Over Time/Others Can Quit — (7) Cannot Charge 2 Predicate Acts Where One Action Violates Two Statutes — (8) A Footnote to Consider for Briefs: “Unless Otherwise Noted, When Quoting Judicial Decisions This Order Accepts All Alterations And Omits All Citations, Footnotes, And Internal Quotation Marks.”

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

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