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

RICO Statute of Limitations Accrual = Injury + (Reasonable) Discovery — No Fraudulent Tolling Absent Due Diligence — Limitations Period Extended Only by Length of Period Due Dilig. Exerted; Period Doesn’t Start Anew at End of Due Diligence

Madison 92nd St. Assocs., LLC v. Courtyard Mgmt. Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16386 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2015): ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Appeal by Counsel Mooted Where Sanction Imposed on Client (for Counsel’s Conduct) and Client Settles Sanction, Despite Harm to Counsel’s Reputation from Language in Opinion — 2 to 1 Decision — Where Is the Line on Appealability?

Tesco Corp. v. Nat’l Oil Well Varco, LP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18903 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2015): Plaintiff Tesco Corporation ("Tesco") and interested parties-appellants [*2]  Glenn A. Ballard, Jr. and John F. Luman, III (collectively "the Attorneys") filed this …
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication — Witness Who Accepted Friend Request Testifies She Was Tagged on Threatening Posts and Received Threatening Photo Via Facebook News Feed, and Her Screenshots of Posts and Photos Are Fair and Accurate

People v. Wooten, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8115 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 12, 2015): A jury convicted William Fred Wooten of making a criminal threat.*** FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Jene Yates suspected that her 16-year-old sister was acting as…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Can Emails of Public Entities Be Judicially Noticed as “Official Acts?” (Would Requisite Foundation Be Tantamount to Conventional Authentication?)

Takla v. Regents of the Univ. of Calif., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150587 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2015): I. INTRODUCTION On August 28, 2015, plaintiffs Nefertiti Takla ("Takla") and Kristen Hillaire Glasgow ("Glasgow") filed their First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 & Inherent Power Sanctions for Sending Settlement Agreement to Adversary Ostensibly Signed by Dead Client — Cross-Motion Denied Where “The Consequences of Counsel’s Violation Are Too Minimal to Justify Monetary Sanctions” (Good Quote)

Hubbard v. Plaza Bonita, LP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19715 (9th Cir. Nov. 12, 2015): The Appellant, Lynn Hubbard III, represented his mother in a lawsuit against a shopping mall and its tenants, alleging they denied her equal access to …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Banks Have Common Interest with Borrower in Getting Favorable Tax Treatment for Restructuring Where Viability Has Tax Law Element & Banks Retain Control of Legal Decisions — Work Product Extended to E&Y Tax Memo

Schaeffler v. United States, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19617 (2d Cir. Nov. 10, 2015): Georg F.W. Schaeffler ("Mr. Schaeffler" or "Schaeffler") and associated entities ("Schaeffler Group") (collectively "appellants") appeal from Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's order denying a petition to quash an…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Crime-Fraud Exception: Factors — Perlman Doctrine — Failure to Provide Privilege Log As Waiver of Request for In Camera Review, Even Where Documents Held by Third Party (Counsel)

In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15911 (1st Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): Appellant is the target of an ongoing grand jury investigation into an alleged scheme to defraud investors regarding the salvaging of a sunken vessel. The…
Continue Reading

Text Messages Authenticated by 902(11) Certification from Carrier Plus Evidence Cell Number Was Defendant’s, Self-Identification in Texts and Their Contents — 902(11) Certification Also Renders Texts Non-Hearsay

Wilson v. Commonwealth, 2015 Ky. Unpub. LEXIS 70 (Ky. Sup. Ct. Sept. 24, 2015): A Kenton Circuit Court jury found Appellant, Pharo Wilson, guilty of three counts of criminal attempt to commit murder and found him to be a second-degree…
Continue Reading

Email Evidence — Forwarded Emails Are Duplicate Originals within Best Evidence Rule — Circumstantial Authentication Includes Fact That Content within Messages Is Logically Interconnected and Connected to Oral Communications

State v. Robinson, 2015 Kan. LEXIS 929 (Kan. Sup. Ct. Nov. 6, 2015): John E. Robinson, Sr., was charged with multiple offenses related to the murders of six women–killings that constituted parts of a common scheme or course of conduct…
Continue Reading
Previous185186187188189190191Next

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