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

Spoliation Found for Destruction of Records That Statute and Rules Required be Preserved in Circumstances Where Litigation or at Least Controversy Was Foreseeable (Residential Funding Standard) — No Sanctions Because Minimal Relevance

Johnson v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21793 (6th Cir. Oct. 18, 2012): I. Spoilation of Evidence Before addressing the merits, we turn first to Plaintiffs’ claim that the district court erred in refusing…
Continue Reading

Must RICO Damages Be Clear and Definite? — Circuit Split — State Work Comp Statute Cannot Bar Federal RICO Remedy for Fraudulent Denial of Benefits — Rooker-Feldman Inapplicable

Jackson v. Segwick [Sedgwick] Claims Mgmt. Servs., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22557 (6th Cir. Nov. 2, 2012) (note: highly divided 3-judge panel): I. BACKGROUND Clifton Jackson was employed by Coca-Cola when he allegedly injured his lumbosacral spine at work in…
Continue Reading

Equitable Estoppel as Basis for Compelling Arbitration against Non-Signatory — Claim Must Arise out of an Obligation Created by Contract Containing the Arbitration Clause

Weingarten Realty Investors v. Miller, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 21984 (5th Cir. Oct. 22, 2012): ***WRI and Miller Sheriden, LLC (“Miller Sheriden”), an LLC organized by Miller, created a joint venture, Weingarten Miller Sheriden (“WMS”), and WRI loaned that joint…
Continue Reading

First-Filed Rule — Required Degree of Overlap between Actions —- Is Complete Identity of Parties Required? (Circuit Split) — Exceptions: “Improper Anticipatory Actions” and “Balance of Convenience and Interest of Justice”

Wyler-Wittenberg v. MetLife Home Loans, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150865 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2012): The Plaintiff Patricia Wyler-Wittenberg … commenced this putative collective and class action against MetLife Home Loans, a Division of MetLife Bank, N.A. … and MetLife,…
Continue Reading

Emails Offered on State of Mind ≠ Hearsay — in Employment Discrimination Case, Complaints Emailed by Employee’s Supervisor to Her Superior Admissible to Show Recipient’s Belief, in Discharging Employee, That Employee Had Acted Badly

Dickerson v. Holsten Mgmt. Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139425 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2012): Ms. Dickerson first takes issue with three emails written by one of Ms. Dickerson’s former supervisors, Carol Redman. Ms. Dickerson argues that these email messages…
Continue Reading

Arbitration / Sanctions — Claim Party Was Fraudulently Induced to Enter Contract, as Opposed to Just Arbitration Clause, Is for Arbitrator to Decide — Even If Rule 11 Violated, Sanctions Are Discretionary

Ipcon Collections LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 20944 (2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2012): This appeal arises out of a contract dispute between Costco and ES Electrosales Leadsinger, Co., Ltd. (“Leadsinger”), a company that sold, inter alia,…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Elements for Proving Fraud in Procuring Award — Error of Expert Witness Insufficient — Error of Fact or Law by Arbitrators ≠ Reversible Act of Exceeding Their Powers

Morgan Keegan & Co. v. Garrett, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22057 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2012): A group of eighteen investors (collectively, “Appellants”) alleged that Defendant-Appellee Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (“Morgan Keegan”) engaged in a fraudulent scheme that induced…
Continue Reading
Previous295296297298299300301Next

Recent Articles

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

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

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