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

YouTube Admissibility — Video of Defendant with a Gun That, Based on Other Evidence, the Jury Could Reasonably Infer Was the Murder Weapon Was Relevant and Not Overly Prejudicial Even If Jury Concluded It Wasn’t the Murder Weapon

People v. Acosta, 2016 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7011 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 26, 2016): Defendant Anthony Paul Acosta shot David Slape once in the head and killed him for Slape's gold chain. Convicted of murder and robbery and sentenced …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Repeated Efforts to Interfere with and Delay Discovery, Including Disregard of Court Order Directing Testimony at Deposition = Evidence of Bad Faith Sufficient to Support Default Judgment

Steffen v. Menhise (In re Steffen), 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16329 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2016): Terri Steffen, proceeding pro se in these three consolidated appeals, appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's entry of default judgment in…
Continue Reading

Must Federal Courts Give Preclusive Effect to Unreviewed Determinations of Law Made by State Administrative Agencies? — Circuit Split — (Factual Findings Are Preclusive)

Buttaro v. City of New York, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125965 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016): 1.Analysis 1.1. Collateral Estoppel Defendants argue that the ALJ's "factual determinations with respect to plaintiff's misconduct are afforded preclusive effect," and that as a result,…
Continue Reading

RICO: Corp. + 2 Officers + 3 Software Consultants + PR Firm ≠ Enterprise — Outsiders Lack Common Purpose & Corp. Indistinct from Officers — Even If No Reliance Needed in Omissions Case, Prox. Cause Still Essential

Ray v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16269 (11th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): In this civil RICO case, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of customers claiming that Spirit Airlines, Inc. ("Spirit") engaged in an elaborate criminal enterprise …
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence: Whois.com Printout ID’ing Website Owner Is Hearsay But OK on Summary Judgment — Right to SJ Must Be Proved Even if No Opp — Default Alone Insufficient for Default Judgment

Black Point Marine, LLC v. Black Fin Yacht Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127699 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2016): Introduction The original Black Fin Yacht Corporation ("Original-BFYC") was a boat manufacturing company that dissolved and was reestablished ("Old-BFYC"). Old-BFYC had…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Bad Faith Still Required for Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (3d Cir.) — Destruction of Evidence during Pendency of Case without Reference to Case and for Purpose of Avoiding Storage Costs Doesn’t Evidence Bad Faith or ≠ Spoliation

Orologio of Short Hills Inc. v. Swatch Grp. (U.S.) Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11611 (3d Cir. June 24, 2016): Appellants Orologio of Short Hills and Orologio International Ltd. (collectively, "Orologio") seek reversal of the District Court's order (1) granting…
Continue Reading

RICO: Agreeing to Bribe Blagojevich Has Natural Ending Point, No Continuity — Mere Association with Him ≠ Bigger Conspiracy — Good Quotes (“Jury Was Entitled to Put 2 & 2 Together”) — Adverse Inference for Asserting 5th Even If Later Testify

Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14057 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2016): This appeal pits casinos against racetracks in our circuit's latest encounter with the Blagojevich corruption scandal in Illinois. In 2008, John …
Continue Reading
Previous153154155156157158159Next

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