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

Spoliation Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Test — To Prove Relevance, Movant Must Show Destroyed Evidence Was of Nature Alleged, Not Just Satisfy Rule 401 — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion

Yoder & Frey Auctioneers, Inc. v. EquipmentFacts, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 24301 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2014): Defendant, EquipmentFacts, LLC ("Efacts"), appeals from the judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio imposing …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Dismissal under Rule 37 Is Extreme, Reserved for Flagrant Cases of Bad Faith — 4th Circuit’s 4-Factor Test — Lesser Sanctions Should Be Considered

Kelly v. Suntrust Bank, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 124 (4th Cir. Jan. 6, 2015): Freddie J. Kelly appeals the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his action against SunTrust Bank and credit reporting agencies Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information…
Continue Reading

No RICO Continuity Where Predicates Are Part of Single, Otherwise Lawful Transaction — Outside Lawyers Don’t Operate / Manage Client — No Liability for Routine Legal Services — Contract Claim in RICO Garb (Good Quotes)

Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports Greenway Ltd., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9918 (5th Cir. June 12, 2015): Plaintiffs-Appellants Mark Zastrow and his company Heights Autohaus (collectively, "Zastrow") appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment on their claims under…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Website Information as to Origins of, and Private v. Public Ownership of, Corporation to Determine Status as State Actor under § 1983 — When Is a Corporation a State Actor? — Factors

Guo v. Independent Chinese Ctr., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108294 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2015): In this action, Plaintiff pro se, Zhi Guo, asserts civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a pendent state law claim against Independent …
Continue Reading

No Rule 11 Sanctions for Derogatory Language in Brief Not Unfounded Legally or Factually — No § 1927 Sanctions for Failure to Grant Extension to File Brief — Local Rules, Judicial Discretion Determine Due Date

Waite v VCG Clark Cnty. Collection Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4934 (9th Cir. Mar. 26, 2015): Waite also contends that the district court erred in denying her motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.…
Continue Reading

Text / Email Authentication — Conduct Pursuant to Text Exchange Sufficient to Authenticate Disputed Texts — Authentication Issue Is for Jury — Court Need Not Be Persuaded Texts Are Authentic — Texts as Admissions

Cook v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 2649 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2015): Appellant's conviction for cocaine delivery arises out of Appellant's sale of drugs to a confidential informant. The confidential informant, Lindsey Ford, testified that she had used …
Continue Reading

Internet Authentication — Chat Logs — Chats on Alleged Speaker’s Password-Protected Computer; He Has Exclusive Possession; Chat Name = His First Name + Characters Extremely Similar to His Email Address

People v. Carothers, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5414 (Cal. Ct. App. July 31, 2015): A jury found defendant James Carothers guilty of possessing child pornography. (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a).) The trial court granted a five-year term of…
Continue Reading
Previous193194195196197198199Next

Recent Articles

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

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