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

Arbitration — Is Manifest Disregard a Permissible Ground to Overturn an Award under the FAA? — Circuit Split — If So, It Requires More Than Legal Error — Arbitrator Must Appreciate & Ignore Clearly Governing Legal Principle

Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165427 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016): C. Manifest Disregard of the Law under 10(a)(4) Respondents bring their manifest disregard for the law assertion under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). Courts vary in…
Continue Reading

Are Pro Hac Vice Fees Recoverable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920? — Circuit Split —Cost of Video May Be Taxed in Addition to Deposition Transcript If Reasonably Necessary — Uncertainty as to Witness Attendance at Trial Is Sufficient

Olesky v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171505 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2016): Plaintiff Henryk Oleksy ("Oleksy") sued Defendant General Electric Company ("GE") for patent infringement. On September 29, 2015, the presiding District Judge ruled that [*4]  GE…
Continue Reading

Removal: If Plaintiff Adds Non-Diverse Defendant within 21 Days of Answer Per Rule 15(b), Should Court Honor That & Remand, Given Absolute Right to Amend, Or Deny Joinder under § 1447(e)? — Caselaw Split — Factors under 1447(e)

Edmond v. Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170896 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016): Proceedings (In Chambers): Order GRANTING Motion to Remand Before the Court is Plaintiff Britani Edmond's motion to remand this action to state court. Dkt.…
Continue Reading

Intervention — May a Magistrate Judge, Who Is Conducting All Proceedings Through Trial and Judgment by Consent of the Parties, Rule on a Motion to Intervene Filed by a Person Who Has Not Consented? — Circuit Split

Davis v. Union Pac. RR, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182824 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2015): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On June 19, 2015, Hallmark County Mutual Insurance Company – as the subrogee of Plaintiffs Daniel Davis and…
Continue Reading

26(g) Sanctions — Impeachment vs. Substantive Evidence under 26(a)(1) — Is It Impeachment If You Offer It Only to Impeach Or Is It “Partially Substantive” If the Court Says So? — Circuit Split — Definition of Substantially Justified

Olivarez v. George Grp., Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22049 (5th Cir. Dec. 12, 2016): Attorneys Shawn K. Fitzpatrick and Timothy Flocos (collectively, "Appellants") were sanctioned by the district court for certifying that their clients' initial disclosures under Federal Rule …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(e) Spoliation Sanctions — No Intent to Deprive — Fees, Jury Instructed Spoliator Was Under Duty to Preserve & Didn’t, Spoliator Barred from Offering Preserved Remainder of Missing Category of Evidence

Security Alarm Financing Enters., LP v. Alarm Protection Tech., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168311 (D. Alaska Dec. 6, 2016): ORDER RE MOTION FOR SPOLIATION SANCTIONS Before the Court is Defendant Alarm Protection Technology's Motion for Spoliation Sanctions at Docket…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Apt for Wide Range of Willful Misconduct Implicating Multiple Rules (Including Fabricated Email, Ad Hominem Attacks in 113 Filings, Extrajudicial Misconduct)—$175K in Fees/Expenses, Referral to Disciplinary Comm (Good Quotes)

Deutsch v. Henry, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168987 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2016): Before the court are Defendants' motions for sanctions. ... Defendants have filed identical motions for sanctions as well as supplemental memoranda specifying the alleged sanctionable conduct in…
Continue Reading

FSIA — Collateral Order Doctrine Applies to Interlocutory Appeals — Only Legal Issues Appealable, Review Is De Novo — Burden of Proof under FSIA — What Is a “Direct Effect” under the Commercial Activity Exception?

Frank v. Commonwealth of Antigua & Barbuda, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21018 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016): These consolidated cases involve Defendant-Appellant, the Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda ("Antigua"), and its alleged involvement with the Stanford Ponzi scheme. As a…
Continue Reading

CAFA — For Case Filed Originally in Federal Court, Subject Matter Jurisdiction Isn’t Lost If Court Denies Class Certification — If Plaintiff Voluntarily Amends Complaint, Court Looks to Amended Complaint to Determine Jurisdiction

Wright Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20937 (11th Cir. Nov. 22, 2016): This appeal arises out of several years of litigation between the parties now before us, as well as many others. This litigation has occupied…
Continue Reading
Previous145146147148149150151Next

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