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 / Sarbanes-Oxley — Federal Statute That Permits Only a Prevailing Plaintiff to Recover Attorney Fees Does Not Implicitly Bar a Defendant from Recovering Fees Authorized Elsewhere

Smith v. Psychiatric Solutions, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8477 (11th Cir. May 6, 2014): Sarbanes-Oxley's fee provision states that "[a]n employee prevailing in any action under [the statute] shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication Based on Facial Characteristics of the Documents Plus Affidavit from One Conversant — Use of Rule 59(e) or 60 as Vehicle for a “Motion for Reconsideration” — Good Quotes

ATS Int’l Servs., Inc. v. Kousa Int’l, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60796 (D. Md. May 1, 2014): This case arises out of a series of shipping contracts between ATS International Services, Inc. ("ATS") and Kousa International, LLC ("Kousa"). ATS…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Imposed in Action 1 for Filing Action 2 Based on Same Occurrences, Despite the Fact that Action 2 Was Never Served and the Court Lacked Personal Jurisdiction over Certain of the Action 2 Defendants

Thurmond v. Wayne Cnty’s Sheriff Dep’t, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8190 (6th Cir. April 28, 2014); On remand, the district court re-imposed the sanction of attorney's  [*27] fees in the amount of $4,080 on Thurmond's counsel. The court based the …
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions—Suspension of Deadlines for Settlement Talks Doesn’t Excuse Disregard of Them after Talks Fail, Even If Order Not Expressly Reinstated—Rule 26(e) Irrelevant to 16(f) Violation—Unclean Hands Inapt If Sanctions Sua Sponte

Rorrer v. Cleveland Steel Container, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8079 (3d Cir. April 29, 2014): During a Title VII action, the District Court imposed a monetary sanction against Plaintiffs' counsel … under Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Litigation Becomes Reasonably Foreseeable to a Party No Later Than the Date Asserted for Work Product — Circumstantial Indicia of Relevance of Lost Documents

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Glenmark Pharms. Inc., USA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7392 (Fed. Cir. April 21, 2014): This patent infringement suit concerns the antihypertension drug having the brand name Tarka®. Tarka® is a combination of two active ingredients into…
Continue Reading

RICO & Twombly—If Parties Enter Facially Legitimate Transactions and Operate for Years Thereunder, “Significant…Factual Specificity” Needed to Allege Fraud Plausibly—Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence from Nonpartisan Research Entity

Eclectic Properties E., LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8579 (9th Cir. May 7, 2014): We consider whether Plaintiffs-Appellants have pleaded facts sufficient under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b) to support a …
Continue Reading

Removal — Bad Faith Prerequisite for Sua Sponte Sanctions in 2d Circuit Satisfied by Actual Knowledge Removal Requirements Unsatisfied — Improper Purpose Not Required — Benefit to Client and Correctability of Act Irrelevant

Cardona v. Mohabir, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62637 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2014): Court-initiated sanctions are expressly contemplated by Rule 11(c)(3) yet, except in an unusual case such as this that is premised upon an admission, the subjective bad faith standard …
Continue Reading

Removal — Sanctions — Neither Rule 11 Nor Rule 60 Nor the Inherent Power of the Court Permits Striking a Remand Order and Retrieving a Case from State Court to Sanction Misrepresentations of Counsel in Obtaining Remand

Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8143 (4th Cir. April 30, 2014) (2-1 decision): The federal removal statute immunizes from review — appellate or otherwise — any order remanding to state court a case removed to federal …
Continue Reading
Previous241242243244245246247Next

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