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

Law of the Case Doctrine Is Not Jurisdictional but Discretionary — As Long as Case Is Alive, Court Can Always Revoke Earlier Rulings (Good Quote) — 3 Exceptions to Mandate Rule: New Evidence, New Law, Manifest Injustice

Muecke Co. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15158 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015): The plaintiffs argue that the law-of-the-case doctrine or, alternatively, the mandate rule prevents the district [*9]  court from reconsidering its previous order denying the…
Continue Reading

Authentication of Internet Evidence — Witness Affidavit Plus Printout Showing URL, Date of Printing or Other Identifying Information — Wayback Machine Printout + Custodian’s Affidavit to Establish Date Material Appeared

SEC v. Berrettini, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115963 (N.D. Ill. Sept 1, 2015): The SEC brings an insider trading action against Defendants Morando Berrettini ("Berrettini") and Ralph Pirtle ("Pirtle"). Before the Court are the SEC's motions in limine numbers 7 …
Continue Reading

Counsel Not Sanctionable under 37(c)(1) — Limits of Right to Rely on Inhouse Counsel for 26(a)(1) Disclosures — Due Process Failure Cured by Opportunity to Be Heard on Reconsideration, Where Court Didn’t Apply Heightened Standard of Review

Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Nelson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15645 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2015): James E. Pennington and Stephen E. Csajaghy, former counsel for plaintiff Sun River Energy, Inc. (Sun River) in the underlying proceedings, appeal from a…
Continue Reading

Jury Trial — Improper Golden Rule Invocation — Fact vs. Legal Testimony by Lawyer — References to Rulings in Opening — Court Not Bound to Interrupt Argument Sua Sponte — Argument Must Be Quite Extreme to Warrant New Trial

Queen v. Schultz, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102169 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2015): The parties in this lawsuit first met in a hallway at an NBC television studio in January 2008, when the plaintiff, Michael Queen, approached Ed Schultz, the defendant.…
Continue Reading

RICO — Mere Use of Traditional Customer Services Doesn’t Transform Non-Bank-Directed Misconduct into Bank Fraud (Good Quote) — Factually Pleading Intent to Defraud Essential to Stating Mail Fraud Predicate

H&Q Props., Inc. v. Doll, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12209 (8th Cir. July 15, 2015): Appellants H & Q Properties, Inc., John Quandahl, [*2]  and Mark Houlton (collectively, "H&Q") appeal the district court's1 dismissal of their claims and denial of…
Continue Reading

RICO Injury — Alleged Attempts to Intimidate and Interfere with Plaintiff’s Efforts to Litigate Claims for, and as Next Friend of, Incapacitated Individual Fail to State RICO Injury

Jones v. Griggs, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14323 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2015): In these two appeals (which we consolidate for disposition), Earl Key seeks to litigate claims on behalf of April Jones, who suffers from early-onset Huntington's disease and …
Continue Reading

Not Quite Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence, But Considering It Nonetheless — 7th Circuit Debates Propriety of Appellate Internet Research Considered But Not Judicially Noticed in Overturning Summary Judgment

Rowe v. Gibson, 2015 WL 4934970 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2015) *1 An Indiana prison inmate named Jeffrey Rowe, the plaintiff in this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charges administrators and prison staff (actually employees of Corizon,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — When Due Process Requires Particularized Notice of Type & Severity of Sanction — Good Quotes on Reputation, Breadth & Limits of Discretion — Jones Day Deposition Sanctions Reversed (30(d)(2))

Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Abbott Labs., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15122 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015): Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, acting as conservator for minor J.M.K., brought this products liability action against Abbott…
Continue Reading
Previous193194195196197198199Next

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