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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Notice of Wayback Machine Results OK Based on Affidavit from Butler — Date in Wayback URL = Date Party Assigns to Page — Screenshots on Party’s Facebook Page Also Noticed

Dzinesquare, Inc. v. Armano Luxury Alloys, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197546 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2014): Defendant Armano Luxury Alloys Inc.'s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Invalidity (Fld 11-12-14) Cause called and counsel make their appearances. The…
Continue Reading

Incoming Texts Not Hearsay: By Responding Affirmatively to Offers to Buy Drugs, Party Adopted Implied Assertions He Had Drugs for Sale — Also Admissible As Context to Make Responses Intelligible

State v. Ulmer, 2017 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1125 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2017): P1 After a jury trial, Clinton Ulmer was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Adverse Inference Instruction “Usually Makes Sense” Only If Bad Faith — Undercut by Prior Notice of Destruction & Opportunity to Analyze — Sanctions Should Fit the Crime — Merits Decision Preferred

Sharp v. Hylas Yachts, LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18388 (1st Cir. Sept. 22, 2017): Following an eleven-day jury trial and verdict, the district court entered judgment against Hylas Yachts, LLC and in favor of plaintiffs Nelson Sharp and his…
Continue Reading

Subject Matter & Personal Jurisdiction: Yelp, TripAdvisor Pages Set Up by Third Parties, Not Defendant, Thus Irrelevant to Minimum Contacts — Twitter: Following Resident of State (Sports Team) Not Enough: Where Does a Tweet Exist?

Blue Water Int’l, Inc. v. Hattrick’s Irish Sports Pub, LLC, 2017 WL 4182405 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 21, 2017): ORDER *1 Several “Hattrick’s” bars serve food and alcohol in the United States.1 Most market themselves as sports bars (in hockey …
Continue Reading

Recusal: Judge’s Twitter Account’s Following of US Atty’s Office Twitter Account Not Enough — Rule 60(d)(3): Not All Fraud Is Fraud on the Court — Standards — Must Be Post-Judgment; Here, Barred by Settlement of Unknown Claims

United States v. Sierra Pacific Indus., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12528 (9th Cir. July 13, 2017): We are asked to decide whether certain allegations of fraud, some of which were known before the parties settled and some of which …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b) Dismissal: Factors (5th Cir.) — Abuse of Discretion: Review More Rigorous for Substantial Sanctions — While Court Needn’t Incrementally Increase Sanctions to Dismissal, It Should at Least Consider Lesser Sanctions First

Oprex Surgery (Baytown), LP v. Sonic Auto. Empl. Welfare Ben. Plan, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14811 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2017): *   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and…
Continue Reading

Class Actions: Rule 23(f) Isn’t Jurisdictional — Motion for Reconsideration within 14 Days of Certification Order Tolls 23(f) Deadline — So Does Statement of Intent to File Motion (Circuit Split on This)

Lambert v. Nutraceutical Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17923 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2017): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) allows a litigant to seek an interlocutory appeal of a district court's order granting or denying class certification. This case …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Court Can’t Use Rule 60(a), Years after Judgment Entered, to “Clarify” That Sanctions against Lawyer Include Firm, to Reflect A New & Subsequent Intent — Only Doable under 60(b) within 1 Year

Le v. Humphrey, 2017 WL 3327797 (11th Cir. Aug. 4, 2017): *1 Following multiple unsuccessful efforts in federal and state court to enforce a monetary sanctions order, and over two years after that order was entered, Phuc Quang Le convinced …
Continue Reading
Previous116117118119120121122Next

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