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

Inherent Power Sanctions: Oral Sua Sponte Denial of Attorney’s Fees Denies Due Process —Texas’ Zachry Rule Only Bars Contractual Exemption from Tort/Contract Liability That Would Insulate Party from Deliberate, Wrongful Conduct

In re Dallas Roadster, Ltd. ITex. Capital Bank N.A. v. Dallas Roadster, Ltd.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 802 (5th Cir. Jan. 17, 2017): This case comes to us after more than five years of litigation over loan agreements between a …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Standard Stringent Because Sanctions Discourage Resort to Courts, Spawn Satellite Litigation, Increase Tension among Bar and between Bench & Bar (Good Quote) — Immaterial Disparities between Pleadings & Discovery (Falsehoods) Not Sanctionable

Moeck v Pleasant Valley Sch. Dist., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23186 (3d Cir. Dec. 23, 2016): Pleasant Valley School District (the "School District") appeals the District Court's order denying its motions for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 & Inherent Power — Grant of Leave to Amend Does Not Immunize Prior Pleading from Sanctions — Even If Claim Arises under Statute Allowing Fee-Shifting , Rule 11 Standards Don’t Change — Must Prove Actual Inability to Pay

Keister v. PPL Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1518 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2017): *   This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Ernest Keister appeals the District…
Continue Reading

A District Court’s Discretion Is Limited When the Imposition of Sanctions Is Tantamount to Dismissal (Good Quote) — Court Must Find Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault and Consider Lesser Sanctions (9th Circuit)

Caltex Plastics, Inc. v. Shannon Packaging Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22204 (9th Cir. December 14, 2016): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Caltex Plastics, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Facebook & Twitter Authentication: Facebook Conversations’ Content Same as Oral Threats + Affidavit from Facebook Custodian That Automated Systems Captured Them when Transmitted — Twitter Content + Pictures + Username

MTV v. State, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 461 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2016): Case Summary P1 M.T.V. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Battery, a Level 3 felony if committed by an adult.1 We affirm.…
Continue Reading

RICO: Plaintiff May Name All Members of Associated-in-Fact Enterprise As Defendants If They Are Separate & Distinct from Enterprise — Officer Is Distinct from Corp. But Corp. + Sub + Officers + Employees Are Not Distinct

Moran v. Bromma, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 908 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiffs Mark Moran and Patricia Bailey White …
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction: Does the Probate Exception — Barring Federal Jurisdiction over Wills, Estate Administration and Disposition of Property in Probate Court — Extend to Federal Question as Well as Diversity Jurisdiction? — Circuit Split

Matter of Boisseau, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11964 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2017): I. INTRODUCTION On May 10, 2016, the Hanover HHR Employee Benefit Plan ("Plan") removed this action to the Northern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § …
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions Require Violation of Unambiguous Order — Order Permitting Discovery by One Party But Silent As to Other Does Not Unambiguously Bar Discovery by Other — Permission Presumptively Unneeded under Rule 26

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. Dist. of Columbia, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1193 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 24, 2017):   Like many municipalities around the country, the District of Columbia regulates the manner in which members of …
Continue Reading
Previous140141142143144145146Next

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