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

Appeals: Not Circuit’s Role to Sift Through Record to Find Uncited Evidence (44-vols., 8,410-pp.) — Motion to Seal OK to Ensure Court Records Not Used for Improper Purpose, Including Scandalizing or Libeling for the Press

Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action raising federal-and state-law claims against insurance companies, trade associations, and consulting firms (“Defendants”). The district…
Continue Reading

RICO: Federal Courts Have Never Construed RICO’s Attorney’s Fees Provision As Barring Prevailing Defendant from Recovering Fees Authorized Elsewhere — State Fees Statute Not Preempted Where Most Claims Arise under State Law

Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action raising federal-and state-law claims against insurance companies, trade associations, and consulting firms (“Defendants”). The district…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Negligence for Missing Court Date OK — Court Should Hear from Before Sanctioning — Lack of Due Process If Rule Provides Only That Sanction “May” Be Imposed But No Criteria Are Given Or Known

Pimentel-Soto, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13101 (1st Cir. April 23, 2020) (Kayatta, J.): Attorney Kendys Pimentel-Soto appeals from the district court's order sanctioning her for failing to appear at a status conference. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the…
Continue Reading

Splitting Cause of Action: Entire Controversy Doctrine (NJ Factors) — Equitable Exception for Claims Unknown, Unaccrued Or Unable to Be Brought — State Law Res Judicata / Collateral Estoppel Rules Apply in Diversity Cases

Casser v. Twp. of Knowlton, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6675 (3d Cir. Mar. 3, 2020) (unpublished): Pro se Plaintiff Claudia Casser appeals from the order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granting the motion…
Continue Reading

Diversity Jurisdiction: Trustee of Deed of Trust May Be Nominal Def., Citizenship Ignored — Res Judicata, Aff’ve Def., OK on 12(b)(6) If Clear from Complaint, Judicially Noticed Facts — Sanctions: FRAP 38/IHP OSC for Twice-Sanctioned Pro Se

Anderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7865 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2020): Pro se plaintiff-appellant Eva Anderson has sued various combinations of the present defendant-appellees and their predecessors-in-interest no fewer than six times, alleging first that …
Continue Reading

Even Though R. 41(d)(2) Provides Only for a Stay of Proceedings until Plaintiff Pays Costs of Prior, Voluntarily Dismissed Action, 2nd Case May Be Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Or under R. 41(b) If Costs Not Paid Per Order

ORDER Tsukerman v. W. Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 12, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6881 (7th Cir. Mar. 5, 2020) (unpublished): A year after voluntarily dismissing a discrimination case against his former employer, Mikhail Tsukerman, a Jewish man in his …
Continue Reading
Previous25262728293031Next

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