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

Party May Intentionally Breach Contract to Advance a Legitimate Economic Self-Interest And Still Rely on Contractual Limitation of Liability Provision — Provision Avoidable Only by Intentional Misconduct Unrelated to Any Legitimate Economic Self-Interest (NY Law)

 Electron Trading, LLC v Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, 157 A.D.3d 579 (1st Dept. 2018):  [*579]  [**634] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered May 24, 2017, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs,…
Continue Reading

Alford Plea Lacks the Probative Value of Conventional Guilty Plea — Generally Insufficient, Alone, to Support Summary Judgment in Civil Action — May Be Admissible — Section 1292(b): Circuit Split May Be Insufficient to Show Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion Warranting Interlocutory Appeal

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Havemeier, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41175 (D. Minn. Mar. 5, 2021): This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Appeal (“Motion”). (Dkt.…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power & Rule 37 Sanctions: Permissive Adverse Inference Is “Among the Most Restrained in [the Court’s] Arsenal,” As It Could Order Matters Deemed Admitted – 11th Circuit Gives Overly Broad Reading of Rule 26(a)(1) in Dicta (At Odds with Advisory Committee Note)

Higgs v. Costa Crociere S.P.A. Co., 969 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2020): On Christmas Eve, 2014, Joyce Higgs tripped over a bucket in a dining area of the cruise ship Costa Luminosa and sustained serious injuries to her left shoulder. …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power And Rule 37 Sanctions: No Dismissal for Perjury During Discovery On Non-Pivotal Issues Exposed on Cross – While Lack of Prejudice Not Dispositive, Judge May Properly Consider Effect of Misconduct on the Litigation

Patrick v. City of Chicago, 2020 WL 5362160 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2020): *1 Deon Patrick was convicted of double murder in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison. The convictions were vacated in 2014 and Patrick was released. The …
Continue Reading

“Claim Splitting Is The Same As Res Judicata But With A Presumption Of A Final Judgment Instead Of An Actual Final Judgment” — No Rule 11 or Section 1927 Sanctions Where Law Complex (Does Denial Of A Motion For Leave To Amend A Complaint Constitute A Final Judgment On The Merits?) And Prior Decision Allowed Suit to Proceed

Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame, 817 Fed.Appx. 142 (6th Cir. 2020): This appeal is the latest installment in the decade-long saga of the Blasingame family bankruptcy, which has involved two proceedings in the bankruptcy courts, two proceedings in the…
Continue Reading

Rule 37: Dismissal “Is A Drastic Remedy That Should Be Imposed Only In Extreme Circumstances, Usually After Consideration Of Alternative, Less Drastic Sanctions” (2d Circuit)

Emamian v. Rockefeller Univ., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26788 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2020) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee Dr. Effat …
Continue Reading

Mere Lack of Merit Not Enough – R. 11 Not Substitute for 12(b)(6)/56 — Court Needs Evidence Outside Complaint to Determine Factual Baselessness — Failure of Complaint to Put Defendant on Notice Not R 11 Violation — Forum Shopping/Improper Venue Not Enough for Dismissal, Just $

 James v. Caterpillar, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26593 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2020) (unpublished): Courts typically reserve the “death penalty” sanction of dismissal with prejudice for the most egregious cases—those that involve, for example, willful misconduct, bad faith, fraud, …
Continue Reading

R 37/Inherent Power (IHP): Decision Not to Sanction Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Clear and Convincing Evid for IHP — Rules 26/37 Primary Tools for Discovery Abuse, Not IHP — Fraud on Court: Judge May Leave Credibility Issue to Jury, Deny Sanction

 Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 31909, 2020 WL 5948910 (2d Cir. Oct. 8, 2020):*1 This is a case about a disloyal employee, Daniel Feldman, the Defendant.1 After trial, a jury found that Feldman…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions: Dismissal with Prejudice and Attorney’s Fees for Pro Ses’ Persisting in Frivolous Venue and Service Arguments Despite Warnings from Court — No Protection from 41(b)

Khan v. Hemosphere Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 25726 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2020): These appeals arise from an action for patent infringement. Drs. Nazir Khan and Iftikhar Khan accused Hemosphere Inc., CryoLife Inc., and Merit Medical Systems, Inc., along …
Continue Reading
Previous22232425262728Next

Recent Articles

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.”

For An Appeal to Be Timely, A Motion for Reconsideration in The District Court (A Rule 59(e) Motion) Must Be Filed, And Not Just Served within 30 Days of The Decision, to Toll The 30-Day Period for Filing An Appeal

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

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