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

(1) RICO and Securities Fraud: Conviction Exception — Caselaw Not Uniform as to Whether Plaintiff’s Damages Must Result from Securities Fraud Directed at Plaintiff — Appeals: 4 Factors Court of Appeals Considers in Deciding Whether to Entertain Arguments Newly Raised on Appeal

Buck v. Compton, 2023 WL 8812472 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2023) (unpublished): OPINION *1 Thomas Buck, a former financial advisor, defrauded several of his clients, including Janice Compton. Following Buck’s criminal conviction for fraud, Compton sued Buck, and the parties…
Continue Reading

RICO Statute of Limitations — Accrual: Actual or Inquiry Notice — Equitable Tolling — Courts Have Inherent Flexibility to Choose Grounds for Disposing of a Case without Reaching the Merits

Garrasi v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2024 WL 191802 (2d Cir. Jan. 18, 2024) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Robert Garrasi appeals…
Continue Reading

RICO: (1) Concrete Financial Loss Requirement — (2) 9(b) Requirements for Mail/Wire Fraud — (3) An Instruction ≠ A Representation and Cannot Constitute Mail/Wire Fraud — (4) Allegations of Frivolous, Fraudulent or Baseless Litigation Activities, Without More, ≠ A RICO Predicate Act

UMB Bank, NA v. Guerin, 89 F.4th 1047 (8th Cir. 2024): Famous American Regionalist artist Thomas Hart Benton and his wife passed away in 1975, leaving behind a family trust (the “Trust”) that included hundreds of works of…
Continue Reading

Rooker-Feldman Not Avoidable By Pursuing A Concurrent Collateral Attack on the State Court Judgment at the Same Time It Is Attacked in Federal Court — Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman Requires That Party Have Been Precluded from Presenting His or Her Case in State Court

Boudette v. Oskerson, 2024 WL 1342613 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff Daniel Boudette appeals from the district court’s order dismissing this case for lack of jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and, alternatively, for…
Continue Reading

A Party Forfeits Invocation of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Failing Timely to Invoke It — While Court Must Ensure It Does Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Has No Duty to Find and Exercise Jurisdiction on a Basis Not Raised by the Parties, Although The Court May Choose to Do So

Behrens v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 96 F.4th 202 (2d Cir. 2024): Five former customers (“Plaintiffs”) of Peregrine Financial Group, Inc. (“Peregrine”), the defunct futures commission merchant, appeal the dismissal of their putative class action by the United States District Court…
Continue Reading

RICO — Pattern — (1) Relatedness Established Where Three HJ factors satisfied— “H.J. Inc.’s List of Relatedness Factors Is Disjunctive, Non-Exhaustive, And Requires Only Sameness Or Similarity Of Any Factor”— “Even Separately-Performed, Functionally Diverse, And Directly Unrelated Predicate Acts Will Form A Pattern under RICO If They Have Been Undertaken in Furtherance of a Qualifying Enterprise” (Good Quotes)

Russo v. Lamancusa, 2024 WL 1433637 (3d Cir. April 3, 2024) (unpublished): *1 Anna Russo and Torry Argiro appeal the dismissal of their civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) claim against Joshua Lamancusa, the Lawrence County…
Continue Reading

RICO and FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Four key elements of § 1962(c)-(d) claim; (2) Standing Alone, Neither A Breach of Fiduciary Duty Nor A Breach of Contract Constitutes Mail Fraud; (3) Falsity, Alone, Does Not Demonstrate Fraudulent Intent; (4) Common Law Fraud Not Implicating Mail or Wires ≠ Racketeering Activity; (5) FRAP 38 Sanctions Inapt for Weak But Not Frivolous Arguments; (6) Recidivism: Prior Sanctions, Alone, Insufficient to Convert Merely Weak into Sanctionable Claims

Efron v. UBS Fin. Servs. Inc. of P.R., 96 F.4th 430 (1st Cir. 2024): APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. William G. Young,* U.S. District Judge] Opinion Plaintiff-appellant David …
Continue Reading
Previous9101112131415Next

Recent Articles

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice