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

Sanctions — Neither Prior Sanction Nor Explicit Observation of Frivolousness Affords Sufficient Due Process to Sustain Sua Sponte Rule 11 Sanction — Due Process Challenge Review Is Plenary, Not Abuse-of-Discretion

O.R. v. Hutner, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2760 (3d Cir. Feb. 8, 2013): Appellant O.R. (“O.R.”) and his attorney, Rotimi A. Owoh (“Mr. Owoh”), (collectively “Appellants”), appeal the October 13, 2011 and January 27, 2012 Orders of the District Court,…
Continue Reading

Non-Testifying Expert Who Submits Declaration on Unsuccessful Summary Judgment Motion Is Subject to Deposition Concerning the Subject Matter of the Declaration — Also on Opinions Formed as Percipient Witness

Positive Techs., Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49738 (N.D. Cal. April 5, 2013): Plaintiff and Defendant have filed a joint statement regarding a discovery dispute over the deposition of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Alan Sobel. See Dkt…
Continue Reading

Expert’s Notes, Outlines, Lists, Letters, Memoranda and Internal Communications with Staff Are Discoverable, Unless They Contain Theories or Mental Impressions of Counsel — 2010 Expert Rules Amendments

Republic of Ecuador v. Bjorkman, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60739 (D. Colo. April 26, 2013): First, because it is the intention of the rules committee to protect the mental impressions and legal theories of a party’s attorney, not its expert,…
Continue Reading

Affidavits Excluded for Failure to Identify Affiants in Initial or Supplemental Disclosures, Even Though Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal — Factors for Exclusion and for Dismissal Sanctions

Carmody v. K.C. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (8th Cir. April 23, 2013): Sergeant James Carmody, Officer Marcus Davis, and Officer Robert Vivona (officers) appeal the district court’s1 orders (1) striking the officers’ affidavits submitted in…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions — Pro Se Litigants Not Entitled to Disobey Two Orders before a Default or Dismissal Can Be Declared — Extrajudicial Rudeness Separately Sanctioned and Forms Part of Basis for Default Dismissal

Maus v. Ennis, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013): John Ennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant, in part, of a default judgment in favor of David Maus and Mark Ornstein (collectively, the “plaintiffs”)…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Refusal to Give Mandatory Adverse Inference Instruction Is Consistent with Refusal to Grant Default Judgment (or Dismissal) — Permissive Instruction Upheld

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (6th Cir. April 25, 2013): Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s decision to impose a permissive, as opposed to mandatory, adverse inference sanction against the City for destroying “e-mails sent and…
Continue Reading

RICO — Fraudulent Appraisal Sustains Mail Fraud-Based § 1962(c) Claim Alleging Scheme to Defraud Homeowner into Taking Out Unsustainable Mortgage, Leading to Foreclosure and Bankruptcy — Proximate Cause Is Not Same as Sole Cause (Good Quote)

Wallace v. Midwest Fin. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8111 (6th Cir. April 23, 2013): This is a subprime mortgage case brought by the borrower, Harold Wallace, against the lender, MortgageIT, Inc. (“MortgageIT”), the mortgage broker, Midwest Financial…
Continue Reading
Previous278279280281282283284Next

Recent Articles

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

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

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