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 Sanctions for Recklessly Furthering Fraud, Defending False St. Ct. Complaint—Dismissal + Monetary Sanctions (Rules 11, 16(f), 37, § 1927, Inherent Power)—Ability to Pay under § 1927 (Circuit Split)—Invited Error (Good Quote)

Danubis Grp., LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6499 (11th Cir. April 17, 2017): PER CURIAM: Attorney Kevin Ambler appeals the district court's imposition of sanctions against him for misconduct related to discovery and his pre-trial…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Motion Seeking Discovery- and Trial-Related Sanctions Mooted by Summary Judgment for Opponent — Adverse Inference Wouldn’t Help Survive SJ on Legal Grounds — Perfunctory Argument on Appeal Waived

Emery v. Talladega College, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8557 (11th Cir. May 16, 2017): I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Joshua Emery was a freshman at Defendant Talladega College in the fall of 2012. Defendants Billy C. Hawkins, Jacqueline W. Paddio, and Miguel…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Bad Faith Personal to Offender (Partner v Firm)—Reckless-Plus or Willful Blindness OK—Out-of-State Non-Appearing Lawyer, Non-Lawyer Subject to Jurisdiction—Clear & Convincing Evidence—Standing—What Is Clearly Erroneous

JTR Enters., LLC v. Columbian Emeralds, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11248 (11th Cir. June 23, 2017): JTR Enterprises, LLC ("JTR"), a company run by Jay Miscovich that was ostensibly engaged in treasure hunting, brought an admiralty action in the Southern …
Continue Reading

Email Authentication, Admissibility: 901(a) Satisfied by Showing Email Sent from Secret Account Known Only to Sender/Recipient & Contained Info Only They Knew — Use of Translator ≠ Hearsay Except Rarely (Nonexclusive Factors Given)

United States v. Zhu, 854 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2016): Kaixiang Zhu was convicted by a jury of conspiring to commit immigration fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and aiding and abetting fraud and misuse of immigration documents, see 18 …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege: Communications between Attorney and 3d Party (Collection Agency) Hired by the Corporate Client Are Privileged Where 3d Party Was Specifically Hired to Find Counsel for Corporation & Is Thus Corporation’s Agent

Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Assocs., PC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9333 (D.C. Cir. May 30, 2017): In order to pursue a Master's degree in Computer Graphics, Demetra Baylor ("Appellant") took out six student loans. Several years after her graduation,…
Continue Reading
Previous125126127128129130131Next

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