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 11 Safe Harbor — No Need to Serve Brief or Supporting Affidavits to Start 21-Day Period — Notice of Motion Plus Correspondence Concerning Motion Sufficient — Bad Faith Inferred from Recklessly Citing Bad Law and Cases Hurting Citer’s Position

Malkan v. Mutua, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21766 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2017): SUMMARY ORDER ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED. Appellants…
Continue Reading

Rule 403 Not for Detrimental or Monotonous Evid., Must Arouse Horror — Flight Always Evid. of Guilt — Can’t Force Adversary to Accept Stip—Text Authentication via Cellebrite—Surveillance Video Auth’n—Must Get Ruling on Objection to Preserve It

Taylor v. Commonwealth, 2017 Ky. Unpub. LEXIS 63 (Ky. Sup. Ct. Nov. 2, 2017): On June 15, 2016, a Fayette County jury convicted Robert Markham Taylor of Murder, Kidnapping, and Tampering with Physical Evidence. The jury recommended sentences of twenty-two…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b) and Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Disobeying Court Order Requiring Production of Computer for Examination and for Perjury in Testimony at Sanctions Hearing

Lambert v. Worldwide Mktg. Techs. Corp., 2017 WL 3833027 (11th Cir. Sept. 1, 2017): Angela Lambert appeals pro se the dismissal of her complaint against her former employer, Worldwide Marketing Technologies Corporation, and its owners, Claudina Pennell, and Daniel Pennell.…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions: Letter to Witness’s Counsel Challenging Facts in Witness’s Affidavit, Calling It Intentional Interference ≠ Witness Tampering — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion (6th Circuit)

Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust v. Eastwood, LLC, 2017 WL 3971441 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2017): *1 In this real estate dispute between lessors Eastwood, LLC, and Eastwood Holdings, LLC, (collectively, “Eastwood”) and lessee Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust (“Wal-Mart”),…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court Has Discretion to Take Notice of Contents of Website of Counsel Who Filed Fee Application

Bluelink Mktg. LLC v. Carney, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191978 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2017): Plaintiffs Bluelink Marketing LLC and Gerald Owens (together, "Plaintiffs") brought this action against defendants Declan Carney and Tagcade LLC (together, "Defendants") for breach of contract, fraudulent…
Continue Reading

Texted Requests or Directions Are Not Hearsay — [While Court May Consider Hearsay for Authentication Purposes under 104(a),] Authenticating Witness Must Be Produced at Trial If Authentication Challenged

People v. Clark, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7686, 2017 WL 5151385 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2017): After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property. Among other things, defendant contends the trial court erroneously admitted…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(d) Sanctions Likely Inapt If Witness Appears But Fails to Answer Questions — Answering Questions on Several Topics ≠ Failure to Appear — Movant’s Own Misconduct Justifies Rejection of Motion for Sanctions

Watkins v. Infosys, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 25193 (9th Cir. Dec. 13, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Marilyn Watkins ("Watkins") sued her former employer,…
Continue Reading

Removal OK under America Invents Act (§1454) If Court Must Interpret Patent — Grable Implicated — Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Adverse Party’s Website on 12(b)(1) (SMJ) Motion (Good Discussion of Limits and Factors reTaking Notice)

Apollo Enter. Solutions, Inc. v. Lantern Credit, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6818 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2018): [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [13] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT'S FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS [34] I. INTRODUCTION Pending…
Continue Reading

If Dismissal on Shotgun Pleading Grounds (“Material Allegations … Buried Beneath … Pages of Rambling Irrelevancies” (Good Quote)), Must Give One Amendment Before Dismissing with Prejudice — Pendent State Claims Should Be Dismissed w/o Prejudice

Vibe Micro, Inc., 2018 WL 268849 (11th Cir. Jan. 3, 2018): *1 This appeal concerns the discretion of a district court to dismiss a complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. Plaintiff Edward Mandel1 appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice…
Continue Reading

Psychologist-Patient Privilege: Mere Fact Patient Tells Doc Fact Crime Has Been Committed, Which Must Be Disclosed to Authorities, Doesn’t Forfeit Confidentiality of Communications — Same re Attorney-Client (Lawyer Disclosure of Facts Not a Waiver)

United States v. Murra, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 906 (5th Cir. Jan. 15, 2018): The earlier opinion issued January 12, 2018, is withdrawn by the panel, and the following is issued in its place:   In August 2016, Defendant-Appellant Olga Murra…
Continue Reading
Previous104105106107108109110Next

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