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

Pleading RICO: “Conclusory Allegations, Unwarranted Factual Inferences, and Legal Conclusions” Insufficient — Appeals: Issues Waived by Making No More Than “Conclusional Assertions” That Complaint Is Adequate (Good Quotes)

Van Velzer v. Amegy Bank, 2018 WL 1135060 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2018): PER CURIAM:* David Van Velzer appeals the dismissal of his civil action by the district court for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil …
Continue Reading

RICO: Litigation Activity as Predicate Generally Fails (Exc’ns), Always If Single Baseless Lawsuit — Case Based on Single District Court Precedent Not Frivolous — §1927 Sanctions Available against Lawyer Proceeding Pro Se — Ethics: Advocate-Wit Rul

Kim v. Kimm, 2018 WL 1054751 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2018): *1 The plaintiff Daniel Kim brings this action pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., alleging that the defendants engaged…
Continue Reading

Contempt Sanction: Reading Only PACER Entry & Not Order = Bad Faith — Magistrate Judge Lacks Power to Adjudicate Contempt — Summary Adjudication OK for Violation in Court’s Presence (Failure to Have Client Present, As Ordered) — $2,500 Penalty

Deutsch v. Annis Enters., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 3028 (5th Cir. Feb. 8, 2018): PER CURIAM: This is a companion case to Deutsch v. Travis County Shoe Hospital, Inc., No. 16-51431, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2647 (5th Cir. …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege: Simply Filing Suit to Which Privileged Info Is Relevant Doesn’t Effect Waiver — Mere Relevance Is Never Enough — Excellent Collection of Waiver Cases with Factual and Legal Analysis — Hearn Overruled by Swidler

In re Iltron, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4136 (5th Cir. Feb. 21, 2018): This mandamus petition calls on us to correct a significant misapplication of attorney-client privilege law. The underlying lawsuit springs from a disputed corporate merger. Plaintiff-Petitioner Itron …
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782: Does a Magistrate Judge Have Jurisdiction to Issue a Final Order to Compel Discovery or May the MJ Issue Only a Report & Recommendation? — Circuit Split

Ex Parte Application of Godfrey, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29794 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018):   REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND PETITIONERS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA Respondent Stephen P. Lynch moves to quash the…
Continue Reading

No § 1927 Sanctions for Conduct in Other Court (Here, Dist. Ct. on App.) — Rule 11 Inapt on Appeal — No Rule 38 Sanctions for Meritless But Not Frivolous Appeal — Rule 15(a) vs. (d): Is Leave to Supplement As Freely Granted as to Amend?

Connor v. Castro, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4511 (5th Cir. Feb. 23, 2018): PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the…
Continue Reading
Previous100101102103104105106Next

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