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

Due Process Requires Notice of Rule, Conduct & Type of Sanctions under Consideration — Vexatious Litigant Injunction Rev’d for Barring Filing of Motions without Pre-Filing Review — No Recusal for Asking Party to Draft Order

Am. Bd. of Surgery, Inc. v. Lasko, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8031 (3d Cir. May 15, 2015): Keith A. Lasko appeals pro se from the District Court's orders entering final judgment. We will affirm in part, vacate in part, and…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — After Loss, Filing Non-Frivolous 2d Suit in Wrong Forum for “Fresh Pair of Judicial Eyes” = Objective Bad Faith — This Is a Lawsuit in Search of a Viable Theory of Recovery (Good Quote) — Law of Case Is Discretionary

Boyer v. BNSF Rwy. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10021 (7th Cir. June 1, 2016): These consolidated appeals are successive to our decision in Irish v. BNSF Ry. Co., 674 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2012). See 7th Cir. Internal Operating…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Require Restraint — Deterrence vs. Direct Harm Caused — Arguments Not Raised below on Appeal (Factors) — Law of the Case & Reasons to Depart — High Evid. Bar for Fraud on Court

StreetEasy, Inc. v. Chertok, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10235 (2d Cir. June 7, 2016): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Douglas Chertok, an attorney proceeding…
Continue Reading

No § 1927 Sanctions for Counterclaims — Explicit Finding of Bad Faith Required for Inherent Power — Quick Correction of Error Counters Finding Bad Faith — Contra Recidivism: Conduct in Other Cases ≠ Evidence of Bad Faith Here (Good Quote)

Glasser v. Blixseth, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7939 (9th Cir. May 2, 2016): Christopher Conant ("Conant") appeals the district court's order granting sanctions against him for filing a frivolous [*2]  counterclaim on behalf of his client, Timothy Blixseth ("Blixseth"). We…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Judge May Rescind Jury Discharge Order, Re-Empanel — Inherent Power Must Be Reasonable Response to Problem & Can’t Contradict Rule or Statute — “All Judges Make Mistakes. (Even Us.)” — Good Quotes

Dietz v. Bouldin, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3772 (U.S. June 9, 2016): In this case, a jury returned a legally impermissible verdict. The trial judge did not realize the error until shortly after he excused the jury. He brought the jury…
Continue Reading

New York — Privilege — Common Interest Exception Requires Pending or Anticipated Litigation — Common Legal Interests Arising out of Merger (Regulatory Approvals, Taxes, Benefits, Etc.) Not Enough — Federal Courts & Restatement to the Contrary

Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2016 N.Y. LEXIS 1649, 2016 NY Slip Op 04439 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 9, 2016): This discovery dispute involves certain attorney-client communications that defendant Bank of America Corporation and defendant Countrywide Financial …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Dismissal for Violating Court Orders — No Need to Consider Lesser Sanctions If Violation Deliberate — Repeatedly Flouting Orders = Bad Faith — Party’s Testimony Rarely Dispensable Based on Own Say-So (Good Quotes)

United States v. $11,071,188.64, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10226 (8th Cir. June 6, 2016): In December 2012, the United States filed an Amended Verified Complaint seeking civil forfeiture of $11,071,188.64 held in various banking and brokerage accounts in the United…
Continue Reading

Yelp Authentication — Appearance of Negative Reviews of Plaintiff’s Business Shortly after Plaintiff Won TRO + Evidence from ISPs That Reviews Were Posted from IP Addresses Owned by Defendant at Time or 6 Weeks Later Authenticates Reviews as Def’s

Kinda v. Carpenter, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 449 (Cal. Ct. App. June 6, 2016): Commercial tenants Artisan Fine Oriental Rug Care, Inc. (Artisan) and its owners Margaret L. Kinda and Aaron Kinda (plaintiffs) sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary …
Continue Reading
Previous164165166167168169170Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

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.”

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