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

Fraud on the Court: Suit to Vacate Judgment Not Limited to Rule 60(b)’s 1 Year—Factors—Clear & Convincing Evid—Lawyer’s Higher Duty of Candor in Ex Parte Cases—Confidentiality Order No Excuse for Deception—Good Quotes on Lawyers’ Duties

In re Bressman (Baxter v. Bressman), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20340 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2017): In this appeal we are asked to decide whether Max Folkenflik, Esq., committed fraud on the court. The Bankruptcy Court determined that Folkenflik had…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — After Party Testifies to Having Consulted Counsel to Show Good Faith, Failure to Waive Privilege and Disclose Advice Can Give Rise to Permissible Inference of Absence of Good Faith

Sec'y United States DOL v. Am. Future Sys., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19991 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2017): I. INTRODUCTION We are asked to decide whether the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to compensate employees for breaks…
Continue Reading

Electronic Signatures: A Name or Email Address in the “From” Field of an Email, Like a Signature Block, Satisfies the Requirement of a Signature under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) (and the Statute of Frauds)

Le Norman Operating LLC v. Chalker Energy, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 9297 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2017): The appellees and cross-appellants, Chalker Energy Partners III, LLC; Raptor Petroleum, LLC; BMW Investments, L.P.; Ark-La-Tex Property Investments, LP; Remora Oil &…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power & § 1927 Sanctions: Prelitigation Conduct May Be Considered on Issue of Bad Faith — Bad Faith of Predecessor Counsel, Client Not Imputed to Successor Counsel — Due Process: Notice Given in Summary Judgment Decision, Sanctions Motion

Redding v. Prosight Specialty Mgmt. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10303 (9th Cir. June 9, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. A fine is…
Continue Reading

Requests for Admission: On Motion to Withdraw Admissions, What = Prejudice to Opponent? Not Just Having to Take Discovery or Prove the Facts — Rule 36 Is Supposed to Be a Time Saver, Not a Weapon (Good Quote)

United States ex rel. Graybar Elec. Co. v. TEAM Construction, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154072 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 21, 2017): Defendants TEAM Construction, LLC ("TEAM") and Western Surety Company's ("Western") moved for partial summary judgment [D.E. 48], and plaintiff …
Continue Reading

Work Product — Disclosure in Corp. Acquisition Setting — Standing: Seller Supplying Info to Buyer’s Counsel Can’t Assert Work Product over Resulting Report — Production of Report Doesn’t Violate Seller’s Fifth Amendment Rights Because Seller

Waymo LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17668 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2017): Appellant Anthony Levandowski, an intervenor, seeks to prevent discovery sought by Appellee Waymo LLC ("Waymo").1 Waymo sued Uber Technologies, Inc. ("Uber"), Ottomotto LLC, and…
Continue Reading

Sanctions & Magistrate Judges: MJs May Preclude Evidence & Deem Facts Admitted under R. 37(b), If These Don’t End the Claim—Violated Order Needn’t Be Written—Order Allowing Discovery≠R. 37 Order—Can MJs Order R. 11 Sanctions? (Cir. Split)

Joint Stock Company Channel One Russia Worldwide v. Informir LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165702 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2017): Before me are two motions, both filed by plaintiffs, seeking sanctions against defendant Panorama Alliance, LP (Panorama) and its former attorney…
Continue Reading

Do “Costs” in Rule 41(d) Include Attorney’s Fees? — Circuit Split — Can Inherent Power Sanctions Be Used If the Answer Is No? — Generally Not — Court May Not Grant Unrequested Relief under Rule 54(c) If It Is a Surprise and Prejudicial

Portillo v. Cunningham, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19603 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017): JohnJay Portillo appeals the dismissal of his claims under common law, Texas statutes, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends that the court erred by dismissing for…
Continue Reading
Previous114115116117118119120Next

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