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: Once It Is Obvious An Asserted Position Has No Basis, Continuing to Assert It Exposes Counsel to Sanctions — The Court Aims To Resolve This Dispute, Not To Litigate The Same Points Ad Infinitum (Good Quotes)

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1187 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 4, 2017): Hartford Iron doesn't like the way Valley Forge has performed on its contract. After three motions to dismiss, numerous excess…
Continue Reading

Removal: May a Non-Forum Defendant Remove before Service Is Effected on a Forum Defendant? — Circuit Split — Held, a Forum Defendant May Remove before It Has Been Served Even If There Are No Non-Forum Defendants

Hwang v. Gladden, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177479 (M.D. Ala. Dec. 21, 2016): This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion to remand (Doc. 9), which is opposed by defendants Brent Gladden and University Real Estate Group, LLC (collectively,…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine: Court Declines to Take Judicial Notice Because of Wayback Machine’s Disclaimer of Warranty of Accuracy — Res Judicata: Prior Judgment Bars More Detailed Allegations of Prejudgment Misconduct, But Not Post-Judgment Incidents

Nassar v. Nassar, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 456 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 3, 2017): THIS CAUSE is before the Court on (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and Memorandum in Support (Doc. 63; "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss"), filed on March…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Rule 37/Inherent Power Dismissal for Bribing Witness — Rule 37 Extends to Hiding Evidence, Lying, Soliciting Lies — 7th Circuit Reverses Clear & Convincing Standard for Dismissal under Rule 37 (Circuit Split) — Gross Negligence May=Fault

Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23404 (7th Cir. Dec. 30, 2016): Upon finding that plaintiff Armando Ramirez had offered a witness money in exchange for his favorable testimony, the district court dismissed Ramirez's suit with prejudice. …
Continue Reading

RICO: Res Judicata Based on State Court Mandamus Action — Dismissal without Prejudice of Some Claims Doesn’t Bar Appeal If They’re Time-Barred — Order Stipulated As to Form Concedes Only That Order Embodies Ruling — Undeveloped Arguments Waived

Scott v. Reif, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16311 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): James and Helen Scott, owners of Best Way Auto Sales (Best Way), brought this action against a number of parties, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983,…
Continue Reading

Removal: Does Filing a Voluntary Cross Claim in State Court Waive Right to Remove? — Circuit Split — Letter from Plaintiff Forwarding Unsigned, Unfiled Stip Dismissing Only Non-Diverse Defendant Triggers 30-Day Removal Period

Boggs v. Harris, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177154 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 2016): I. Introduction Pending before the court is a motion to remand filed by plaintiffs Roy Boggs and Annette Boggs ("plaintiffs"). (ECF No. 5.) On June 28, 2016,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions—Even If Making Argument for Change in Law Is Futile Because Same Judge Has Rejected It in the Past, You Must Do So—Not Enough to Say You Plan to Appeal the Issue—No Duty to Anticipate/Respond to Affirmative Defense in Complaint

Foreman v. Wadsworth, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22598 (7th Cir. Dec. 20, 2016): Anthony Foreman, who used to own a restaurant in Rockford, Illinois, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Illinois tort law. He alleged that a …
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Delaware Sup. Ct. Takes Judicial Notice Internet Searches Can Generate Reliable Info for Pleading Purposes (“As with Any Source of Information…The Internet Should Be Used with Care”) (Good Quote) — Derivative Pleading Rules

Sandys v. Pincus, 2016 Del. LEXIS 627 (Del. Sup. Ct. Dec. 5, 2016): I. This appeal in a derivative suit brought by a stockholder of Zynga, Inc. turns on whether the Court of Chancery correctly found that a majority …
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f)/37 Sanctions — Default for Lack of Preparation for Pretrial Conference & Failure to Pay Prior 16(f) Sanction — Discretion Narrows as Severity Increases — No Testimony Needed for Default — Absent Prejudice, Due Process Violation Harmless

RDLG, LLC v. Leonard, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9390 (4th Cir. May 23, 2016): RDLG, LLC ("RDLG") sued Fred M. Leonard, Jr. ("Leonard"), raising state law fraud claims. The district court1 entered default judgment in RDLG's favor as a …
Continue Reading
Previous143144145146147148149Next

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