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

Avoidance of Rule 11 Sanctions by Withdrawing Complaint During Safe Harbor Period Does Not Insulate Party from Exceptional Case Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Patent Cases)

Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Servs., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9876 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2017): Appellant ADS Security, L.P. ("ADS") appeals the opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c) Exclusion of Evidence Not Disclosed until SJ — If Exclusion = Dismissal, Willfulness Needed— Affidavit Based on Personal Knowledge “Or Believed to Be True” Based on Records & Discussions Does Not Create a Fact Questiion at SJ

BWP Media USA Inc. v. Urbanity, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10784 (9th Cir. June 19, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiff-appellant BWP Media …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions OK for “Objective Bad Faith” — Appellate Jurisdiction Exists for Dismissal without Prejudice Based on Arbitration Clause or Forum Non Conveniens Because It Is Final as to Federal Court, as Opposed to the Other Forum

Hunt v. Moore Bros., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11607 (7th Cir. June 29, 2017): James Hunt worked as a truck driver in Nebraska. On July 1, 2010, he signed an Independent Contractor Operating Agreement with Moore Brothers, a small…
Continue Reading

Corporate Receiver’s Production of Documents from Corp. Authenticates Them — Emails Authenticated by Being Found on Computer of Defendant-Officer of Corp. — Court Disregards Boilerplate Evidentiary Objections on SJ, Can’t Fully Address All Others

FTC v. Kutzner, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174299 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2017):  I. INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission's ("Plaintiff" or "FTC") Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants Jeremy Foti ("Foti") and Charles Marshall…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Equitable Tolling Applies to Motion to Vacate, Modify or Correct an Award under FAA § 12 — Evident Partiality: Standard; Not Shown by Dated, Attenuated or Insubstantial Ties

A. Miner Contr., Inc. v. Dana Kepner Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15536, 2017 WL 3530894 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2017): Appellant A. Miner Contracting, Inc. ("Miner") appeals the district court's order denying Miner's petition to vacate an arbitration award…
Continue Reading

Rule 41 Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute — Spending Time & Money Pursuing Cooperation Plaintiff Was Obliged to Provide=Prejudice — No Need to Consider Lesser Sanctions If Clear Record of Delay

Migliori v. Microsoft Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2017): Joseph Migliori, an Ohio resident proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his products-liability action for want of prosecution. This case has been referred to…
Continue Reading

Crime-Fraud Exception: To Get Opinion, But Not Fact, Work Product, Must Show Lawyer Knew of Misconduct — What Lawyer Remembers of Interview = Opinion WP, Even If No Notes — Questions Merely Lurking in Prior Case ≠ Precedent (Good Quote)

Grand Jury Subpoena v. United States, 870 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2017) (2-1 decision): PER CURIAM: This case arises from the district court's denial of a motion to quash grand jury subpoenas demanding testimony of a criminal defendant's attorney …
Continue Reading

Rule 11, § 1927, Inherent Power Sanctions: $9,164,404.12 Fine ($6,983.42 per Case [Rand Study] x 1,250 Phony Suits + Cost of Special Master), Reprimand & Referral to Disciplinary Committee — Mere Mistake Not Sanctionable (Good Quotes)

In re Engle Cases, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172678 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 18, 2017): OPINION AND ORDER Table of Contents Go to table1 WILLIAM G. YOUNG, TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, MARCIA MORALES HOWARD, and ROY B. DALTON, JR., DISTRICT JUDGES…
Continue Reading

Expert Reliance on Third-Party Website to ID Drugs—Cal. Equivalent to Fed. R. Evid. 803(17)—A Website Database Can Be a Reliable “Compilation”—Need It Be Log-In Only? Must Its Source of Info Be Shown to Be Accurate?

People v. Mooring, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 856  (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2017): In 2011, law enforcement officers searched the home of Lanita Denise Davis and Darrell James Mooring, (Mooring, Sr.) and found over 4,000 prescription pills, many of…
Continue Reading
Previous113114115116117118119Next

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