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

§ 1927 Sanctions OK for Repeatedly Asserting Non-Existent Facts on SJ — Taxing Costs: Video, Steno Records Serve Different Purposes, Both Allowed — Cost of Deps That Would’ve Been Needed If Case Tried OK Though Not Used on Successful SJ Motion

Maiteki v. Marten Transp., Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5366 (10th Cir. Mar. 28, 2017): *   After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this…
Continue Reading

Disqualification—(1) Order Granting or Denying a Motion to Disqualify Counsel in a Civil Case Is Not Immediately Appealable & (2) Party Lacks Standing to Disqualify Opponent’s Counsel Absent Showing That The Representation Harmed It

Two Decisions, Same Case, Two Years Apart: (1) Schneider v. Cnty. of Will, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 23265 (7th Cir. Jan. 22, 2015): IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Generally, an appeal may not…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court—Specific Jurisdiction: State Court Lacks Personal Jur. over Defendant re Nonresidents’ Claims Identical to Those of Residents’, Absent Connection between Forum & Claims — Must Sue in State with Gen. Jur. or Maybe Federal Court

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3873 (U.S. June 19, 2017): More than 600 plaintiffs, most of whom are not California residents, filed this civil [*6]  action in a California state court against Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS),…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Class Actions — Plaintiffs Denied Certification Can’t Voluntarily Dismiss Individual Claims to Appeal Certification & Revive Their Claims If They Win — Must Try the Case — Rule 23(f) Is Sole Avenue for Interlocutory Review

Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3721 (U.S. June 12, 2017): This case concerns options open to plaintiffs, when denied class-action [*7]  certification by a district court, to gain appellate review of the district court's order. Orders granting or…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal of Claim Asserted by Corporation Not Represented by Counsel Proper — Corp. Must Be Represented — In C.D. Cal., Same Applies to LLCs under Local Rule

Bourbeau v. Cogntive Code Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8444 (9th Cir. May 11, 2017): AMENDED MEMORANDUM* *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiffs-Appellants John Bourbeau,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Empty Head, Pure Heart Defense Fails — Reasonable Assessment of Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel Bar Required — Motive Behind Rule 11 Motion Irrelevant [Improper Purpose Impossible?]

Clemmons v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3797 (10th Cir. Mar. 2, 2017): *   These consolidated appeals were ordered submitted on the briefs on October 20, 2016. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under…
Continue Reading
Previous126127128129130131132Next

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