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

Civil RICO Claim Survives Defendant’s Death (fn 24) (issue conceded) — Meaning of “Abuse of Discretion” (First Circuit) — Court Has Discretion to Decline to Substitute a New Party for a Deceased Party — Who Qualifies As A Deceased Party’s Successor or Representative — Arguments Forfeited Below Considered for Plain Error Only on Appeal — 4 Prongs of Plain Error — The 90-Day Substitution Period in Rule 25(a) Begins Upon Service of the Suggestion of Death — Default Judgment Is a Drastic Measure And Should Be Employed Only in an Extreme Situation

Universitas Education, LLC v. Granderson, 98 F.4th 357 (1st Cir. 2024): When Plaintiff Appellee Universitas Education, LLC (“Universitas”) first initiated this lawsuit against Jack E. Robinson, III (“Robinson”) in 2015, it sought damages against him for (among many other things)…
Continue Reading

(1) FRAP 38 Sanctions: “Woebegone Contests To Arbitrators’ Awards Are Sanctionable. Anything Less Makes A Mockery Of Arbitration’s Promise To Expedite And Cut The Costs Of Resolving Disputes” (Good Quote) — (2) Arbitration: New York Law and AAA Rules Allow Awards of Attorney’s Fees as Sanctions Even If the Contract Provides That Each Party Is to Bear Its Own Fees

Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. Sun Holdings, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 13303 (7th Cir. June 3, 2024): Sun Holdings purchased a workers’-compensation policy from American Zurich Insurance. The policy made American Zurich responsible for paying all approved claims in…
Continue Reading

(1) RICO: Causation Requires Direct Relation Between Injury and Conduct — May Properly Be Assessed at Pleading Stage — “Civil RICO Is An Unusually Potent Weapon And For That Reason Courts Strive To Flush Out Frivolous Rico Allegations At An Early Stage Of The Litigation” (Good Quote) — (2) Denial of Leave to Amend Usually Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion But De Novo Review Applies If Denial Based on a Legal Interpretation, Such as Futility

*1 Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs Jonathan and Esther Zuhovitzky challenge the district court’s dismissal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanction of Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors — Factors Applied More Stringently When Fault Lies with Counsel Rather Than Party — Bad Faith/Willfulness/Fault Satisfied by Delay or Contumacious Conduct — Failure to Comply with Discovery Requests or Court Order Versus Merely Dilatory Conduct — Time, Money and Effort to Obtain Legally-Required Cooperation = Prejudice — Dismissal May Be First and Only Sanction

D & R Servs., LLC v. Mesa Underwriters Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 WL 2830660 (6th Cir. June 4, 2024): *1 D & R Services, LLC and DD & KD Services, LLC1 brought this action against their insurer, Mesa Underwriters…
Continue Reading

RICO Conspiracy: (1) Fourth Circuit’s 3-Part Test Requires Conspiring to Operate or Manage the Enterprise (Minority Rule Following Salinas) — (2) Conspirator Need Not Personally Commit Any Predicate Acts — Sufficient That S/he Agreed That One Member of the Conspiracy Commit At Least 2 Predicate Acts — Unnecessary to Identify Specific Racketeering Acts That The Defendant Agreed Would Be Committed — “The Object Of A Rico Conspiracy Is To Engage In Racketeering, Not To Commit Each Predicate Racketeering Act” — Necessary to Prove Only The Defendant Agreed to Pursue The Same Criminal Objective As the Enterprise — (4) Because A Racketeering Conspiracy Is Not Contingent On Specific Predicates, A Jury May Convict On A RICO Conspiracy Charge While Acquitting Defendant On Predicate Acts

United States v. Hunt, 99 F.4th 161 (4th Cir. 2024): This appeal arises from the prosecution of the “36th Street Bang Squad” (the “Bang Squad”), a gang that committed a string of murders, attempted murders, and assaults in 2015 and…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split — Derivative Actions — Third Circuit Joins Majority of Circuits in Holding That Dismissal Decisions on Grounds of Futility Are Subject to De Novo Review, Abandoning Abuse of Discretion — Relevant Factors in Deciding Whether De Novo or Deferential Review Is Appropriate

In re: Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. Derivative Litigation, 101 F.4th 250 (3d Cir. 2024) (en banc): We initiated en banc review of this case to consider what standard of appellate review ought to apply when a district court dismisses a …
Continue Reading

RICO: No Domestic Injury Where Investors In Ghana Placed Funds With Ghanaian Investment Firm And Those Funds Were Stolen In Ghana By A Ghanaian Family Domiciled In The US — Irrelevant That Funds Were Transmitted To US entity Owned By Ghanaian-American Defendants — Domestic Injury May Properly Be Decided On Motion To Dismiss — Rejecting A Conduct-Plus-Property Rule: That A RICO Injury Arises In The Place Where A Plaintiff’s Property Is Located At The Time Of The Racketeering Conduct

Percival Partners Ltd. v. Nduom Groupe Nduom USA, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10431, 99 F.4th 696 (4th Cir. 2024): This case began when investors in Ghana placed their funds with a Ghanaian private investment firm, hoping to recoup a …
Continue Reading

RICO: 9(b) Particularity Applies to Mail and Wire Fraud Allegations; Even Where Some Allegations Are Insufficiently Particular, A Complaint May Satisfy 9(B) If Its Allegations Are Sufficiently Particularized When Taken As A Whole; Four Elements of a § 1962(c)-Based RICO Claim — Appealability: Dismissal without Prejudice Is Appealable If No Leave to Amend Granted, Judgment Entered and Case Closed — Dismissal for Failure to Satisfy 9(b) Treated As 12(b)(6) Dismissal for Failure to State Claim for Relief — Court First Determines Whether 9(b) Satisfied And, If So, Whether 12(b)(6) Is — “Rule 12(b)(6) Motions To Dismiss Are Not Designed To Weigh Evidence Or Consider The Truth Or Falsity Of An Adequately Pled Complaint” (Good Quote)

Clinton v. Sec. Ben. Life Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 1264 (10th Cir. 2023):  [*1269]  ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are consumers who sued Defendant Security Benefit Life Insurance Company under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 …
Continue Reading
Previous14151617181920Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Propoerty When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice