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

Emails between Prospective Partners Not Business Records Where No One Was Responsible for Keeping Them, It Was Unclear Which Were Required or Who Was Custodian — Use of “Indentured Servitude” on Summation OK

Queen v. Schultz, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23479 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 9, 2016): This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and briefed and argued by counsel. The Court has…
Continue Reading

Texts Sent=Admissions, Received=Context — Facebook Posts Authenticated by Nickname, DOB, Residence, Email Addresses, Photos (Which Also Appear on Owner’s Phone), FB Application and Contents — Corroborative vs. Cumulative Evidence

United States v. Lewisbey, 843 F.3d 653 (7th Cir. Dec. 9, 2016): David Lewisbey was a Chicago-based gunrunner who used a fake Indiana I.D. to buy guns at Indiana gun shows and bring them back to Illinois to sell. He …
Continue Reading

Docs [Emails] Created by Adversary & Produced=Admissions, Even If Not Business Records — Sham Affidavit Rule: Inconsistency Going to Credibility Not Necly Sham — Summary Judgment: Conclusory Affidavits Ignored; More Leeway Given to SJ Opponent

Daniels v. Tex. Dept. of Transp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171017 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2016): MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court are Defendants Texas Department of Transportation's ("TxDOT") and Executive Director James M. Bass's, in his official…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: District Court May Not Award Appellate Fees Absent Statutory Authorization, Except for Interlocutory Appeal If Prevailing Party Later Wins Below — Even If District Court Proceedings Frivolous, Appeal May Not Be — $17 Million FCA Award

In re Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litig., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 142 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2017): This is the second appeal in a qui tam case lasting over 20 years and initially involving more than 300 natural gas…
Continue Reading

Text Message Authentication: Mere Proximity to Phone, Absent Proof of Ownership or Linkage to Content of Texts or Other Circumstantial Evidence Linking Alleged Owner to Messages, Insufficient to Authenticate

Garnett v. Commonwealth, 2016 Va. App. LEXIS 361 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2016): *   Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Terrell Dewayne Garnett appeals an order convicting him of possession with intent to…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Doesn’t Prevent Summary Judgment in Spoliator’s Favor If Only Adverse Inference Would Not Save Adversary’s Claims — Appeals: Failure to Order Transcript of Recorded Hearing As Required by FRAP 10(b)(1) Forfeits Claim of Error

Rodriguez v. Forthright, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22463 (3d Cir. Dec. 19, 2016): *   This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Felix A. Rodriguez appeals…
Continue Reading

Court May Take Judicial Notice of Document Filed in Another Case Not for the Truth of the Matters Asserted But Only to Establish Fact of Filing and What Is Asserted — Judicial Estoppel: Factors

United States v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175617 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2016): II. Judicial Estoppel Patel also argues that the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars the SBA from bringing this action. Judicial estoppel "generally …
Continue Reading

Arbitration — If Complaint/Supporting Docs Unclear on Agreement to Arbitrate, Motion to Compel Should Follow Discovery, Be Decided under SJ Standard — While Continuing to Work after ADR Policy May=Consent to Arbitrate, Not So If Employee Dissents

Scott v Education Mgmt. Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18662 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2016): In these consolidated appeals, two former employees of the Education Management Corporation ("EDMC") appeal from orders dismissing their separate claims of discrimination. The employees —…
Continue Reading

RICO/9(b): Where Many Sued, Complaint Need Not Necessarily ID False Statements by Each But Conclusory Conspiracy Claim Not Enough — Each’s Role Must Be ID’ed; Collective Action OK If All Did Same Thing — Basis for Belief (Info+B) Must Be Stated

Puri v. Khalsa, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 287 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. The plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of …
Continue Reading

Video Evidence Should Be Reviewed by the Court In Camera before It Is Displayed to Jury — Fact That Attorney Referred Plaintiff to Physician Is Relevant, Admissible — Fact Plaintiff’s Counsel Advertises Excluded

Ernestine v. Hi-Vac LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141290 (S.D. Miss. Oct. 12, 2016): This matter is before the Court on the Motion in Limine [143] filed by Plaintiff Lionel Ernestine ("Plaintiff"), and the Motion in Limine [147] filed by…
Continue Reading
Previous142143144145146147148Next

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