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 Violations Didn’t Cause Plaintiffs’ Loss of Property Where They Lacked the Funds to Cover Mortgage Payments or Taxes — Merely “Peripheral References” to Issue in Rule 50(a) Motion Fails to Preserve It

Uni-Rty Corp. v. Guangdon Building, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12478 (2d Cir. July 2, 2014): Plaintiffs-counterclaim-defendants-appellants-cross-appellees Uni-Rty Corp. and Golden Plaza Limited Partnership ("GPLP") (collectively, "plaintiffs") appeal from the January 16, 2013 amended judgment of the United States District…
Continue Reading

Taxation of Costs: Video Deposition Editing, In-Court Technical Support, Equipment Rental Not Taxable under § 1920 (Circuit Split, New S.Ct. Case Unfavorable) — Demonstrative Boards Not Necessary

Fowler v. Cal. Hwy. Patrol, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112540 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2014): Defendants move the Court to review and tax two discrete costs disallowed by the Clerk: (1) exemplification costs related to video presentations used at trial …
Continue Reading

Securities — Satisfaction of Morrison’s 2-Part Test Is Necessary, But Not Sufficient, to Support Invocation of 10b-5 — If Application of 10b-5 Would Be Incompatible with Foreign Regulation, 10b-5 Inapt

Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings, SE,  2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15758 (2d Cir. Aug. 15, 2014): In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), the Supreme Court established that, by virtue of the presumption…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Failure to Respond to Portions of Summary Judgment Motion Directed to Claims Plaintiff Choose to Abandon Is Not Sanctionable — Duty Is to Abandon Unsustainable Claims

Adams v. Austal, USA, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11318 (11th Cir. June 17, 2014): Defendant-Appellant Austal USA, LLC appeals the March 2, 2012 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denying Austal's motion…
Continue Reading

Spoliation—Losing Evidence Suspiciously = Intentional—Stricter Review for Dismissal, Default—Discovery Not Limited to Relevant, Admissible Evidence, Is Fluid as Case Evolves—OK to Impose More Than Minimally Punitive Sanction (Good Quotes)

Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15597 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2014) (Note:  This is the second Sentis opinion by the Eighth Circuit.  See our post of April 23, 2009, for excerpts from the…
Continue Reading

Vexatious Litigant Injunctions — Factors — 2 Cases Too Few; Motion Practice Inadequate — “A Successful Motion Is Neither Baseless Nor Frivolous” — Limitations on Orders — Invited Briefs Not to Be Held against Filer (Good Quotes)

Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cnty. of L.A., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14979 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2014): This appeal requires us to consider the limits of a federal court's authority to impose pre-filing restrictions against so-called vexatious litigants. The case arises from…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions for Pursuing Issue of First Impression — Tenuous Nature of Legal Theory Coupled with Inadequate Factual Investigation — Rule 11 Factors (Eleventh Circuit)

Walther v. McIntosh, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13987 (11th Cir. July 23, 2014): Dorothy Walther, Howard Walther, and Phillips P. O'Shaughnessy appeal the district court's order imposing sanctions against O'Shaughnessy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for his conduct…
Continue Reading

Does a Magistrate Judge Have Authority to Decide a Motion for Spoliation Sanctions under Rule 37 or the Court’s Inherent Power? As with Rule 11, the Case Law Is Split

In re Estate of Jackson v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96355 (E.D.N.Y. July 15, 2014)): Plaintiff the Estate of Willie Jackson ("plaintiff" or the "Estate") brings this action against numerous defendants associated with Suffolk County (the "County…
Continue Reading
Previous231232233234235236237Next

Recent Articles

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

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

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