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

Spoliation — No Adverse Inference Instruction for Video Recorded over in Ordinary Course of Business Where It Did Not Depict the Relevant Incident and Opponent Failed to Issue a Timely Request for Production [or Preservation] of It (Pre-37(e))

Parrish v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3568 (6th Cir. Feb. 27, 2017): This case involves the review of three decisions by the trial court: a denial of a motion to continue because of alleged nondisclosure of a…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court May Take Judicial Notice of Proceedings in Other Courts — Document Posted on Government Website Is Presumptively Authentic If Government Sponsorship Can Be Verified by Visiting the Website Itself

Bowmanv. Fister, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152569 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 3, 2016): Vivian Janet Bowman is a resident of Lexington, Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, Bowman has filed a civil complaint against defendants Rhonda Fister and the Fayette County Public School…
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Website of Parent Can’t Be Attributed to Subsidiary under Rule 801(d)(2)(D) Absent Showing That Parent Was Sub’s Agent & Statements Were Made within the Scope of the Agency

Venegas v. Globa Aircraft Serv., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130164 (D. Me. Sept. 23, 2016): Before the Court is the Defendants' joint motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (ECF No. 100). For the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — More Probing Appellate Review — Vexatious Litigant Injunctions & All Writs Act — Factors — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Acts before District Court Sanctionable by Bankruptcy Court Because in Same Case

Matter of Carroll (Carroll v. Abide, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4367 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017): PER CURIAM: The bankruptcy court declared William Douglas Carroll, Carolyn K. Carroll, Pamela K. Alonso, and Cynthia G. O'Neal vexatious litigants and set forth …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — U.S. Patent Office Records on 12(b)(6) Motion Only for the Limited Purpose of Showing Dates of Filings and Actions Described Therein

Morton & Bassett, LLC v. Organic Spices, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120092 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2016): Before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant-Counterclaimant Organic Spices, Inc. ("Defendant"). Dkt. No. 40 ("Mot."). Defendant moves to…
Continue Reading

RICO: Parallel Conduct, Even with Knowledge of Others’ Acts, Cannot Support a Plausible Inference of Agreement or Relationships Needed to State Enterprise — Twombly Parallel-Conduct Standard Also Applies to Conspiracy

Almanza v. United Airlines, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4377 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017): Some find travel taxing. Plaintiffs in this case are among them, but not for the usual reasons. Plaintiffs are Mexican nationals who, in flying with …
Continue Reading

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (Pre-37(e)): Even If Adverse Inference Instruction Is Permissible, Court Is Not Required to Issue It — Parties Allowed to Argue Their Positions to the Jury — Whether to Instruct Depends on Motive / Degree of Fault

Garcia Miranca v. Wyatt, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Rafael Garcia Miranda and Olga Martha …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: While Rule 11 Requires Conduct Violating 11(b)(1), (2), (3) or(4), Violation of the Duty of Candor Is Sanctionable under Inherent Power — Counsel’s Less-Than-Clear Comments Cannot Mislead Court That Knows True Facts

Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. United States, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 202 (Ct. Fed. Claims Mar. 16, 2017): RULING REGARDING THE COURT'S DECEMBER 5, 2016 NOTICE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RCFC 11(b) WAS NOT VIOLATED This bid…
Continue Reading
Previous135136137138139140141Next

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