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 — 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under…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

RICO Limitations: If Storm Warnings, Plaintiff Must Show It “Exercised Due Diligence But Couldn’t Find and Avoid the Storm” (Good Quote) — Can a Lawsuit Be a Predicate Act? — It Won’t Revive Claim by Attaching Out-of-Time Fraudulent Documents

Hawk Mountain LLC v. Ram Capital Grp. LLC, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8492 (3d Cir. May 12, 2017): *   This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. In…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction—Abuse of Discretion: Less Deference If “Unaccompanied by Reasoning” (Good Quotes) —Different Injns on Similarly Situated Parties, 1 Harsher Than Sought, Reversed

In re Ross, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10004 (3d Cir. June 6, 2017): Raymond Ross appeals from a broad filing injunction issued against him by the Bankruptcy Court after he and his wife used the bankruptcy process to stave off …
Continue Reading

RICO: Marijuana Growing=Predicate Act—Business Is Primarily Criminal—RICO Incorporates Common Law of Nuisance—Adjacent Property Plausibly Injured by Odors, Openly Criminal Acts—How “Concrete” Must Injury Be? Is There a Circuit Split?

Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10101 (10th Cir. June 7, 2017): These three appeals arise from two cases that concern the passage, implementation, and alleged effects of Amendment 64 to the Colorado Constitution, Colo. Const. art. …
Continue Reading

RICO: If Enterprise’s Business Is Primarily Racketeering Activity (e.g., Crime Family), Horizontal Relatedness Shown by Linking Acts to Enterprise — Otherwise, HJ Factors Must Be Applied

Reich v. Lopez, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9172 (2d Cir. May 26, 2017): Plaintiff-Appellant Otto J. Reich is the principal of a (co-plaintiff) consulting firm specializing, inter alia, in fighting government corruption. He alleges that he and his firm were…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Apt in Court 1 for Wasting Judicial Resources by Litigating Claims Party Knows Court 2 Has Enjoined — Litigants Are Not Their Opponents’ Keepers (Good Quote) — Dismissal, $1.29 MM in Fees Excessive

In re Jemsek Clinic, PA (Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC v. Jemsek Clinic, PA), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3853 (4th Cir. Mar. 3, 2017): In this case, the bankruptcy court imposed staggering sanctions on a creditor. It dismissed with …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions for Spoliation — Default Judgment — Bad Faith Shown by Use of Cleansing Programs, Misrepresentations to the Court, Email Saying “They Were Supposed to Be Erased by the IT Department”

Organik Kimya v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2623 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 15, 2017): Organik Kimya San. ve Tic., A.[#x15e]., Organik Kimya Netherlands B.V., and Organik Kimya US, Inc. (collectively, "Organik Kimya") appeal from the International Trade Commission's …
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication — Page Authenticated as Defendant’s by Fact It Bears His Name (Misspelled), Photo, and Name of His Gang — 404(b) Not Implicated by Photo of Defendant Holding Gun Where Access to Gun at Issue — A Photo Is Not Hearsay

People v. Pettes, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 881 (Mich. Ct. App. May 25, 2017): Per Curiam. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a…
Continue Reading
Previous127128129130131132133Next

Recent Articles

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

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

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