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: Almost Unanimous Case Law Holds Concealment of Assets in Divorce ≠ Pattern of Racketeering — Single Scheme with Single Victim over Limited Time Insufficient — RICO = Lit. Equivalent of Thermonuclear Device (Recycling Good Quote)

Bachi-Reffitt v. Reffitt, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3813 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) (unpublished): Kevin Reffitt and Dawn Bachi-Reffitt had been married for almost 20 years, and actively engaged in divorce proceedings for over a year, when they finalized their …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Require Specific Finding of Bad Faith Or Willful, Deliberate Disobedience of Court Order — Finding of Recklessness or Bad Faith Essential — Ignoring Court Order after Retention Ends, Without More, Does Not Suffice

Edwards v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Dist., 2020 WL 1131260 (9th Cir. Mar. 9, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Appellant Darion Edwards appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions against his attorney, Mr. Na’il Benjamin, pursuant to its inherent authority and 28 …
Continue Reading

Experts: District Court Must Apply Rule 702 and Daubert in Bench Trials — While Court Retains Latitude to Decide How to Do So, Must Choose among Reasonable Alternatives, Can’t Abandon Gatekeeping Function

UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement for 1.7575 Acres, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4192 (3d Cir. Feb. 11, 2020): "An intelligent evaluation of facts is often difficult or impossible without the application of some scientific, technical, or other specialized…
Continue Reading

Waiver of Privilege/Work Product Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Per Curiam Opinion (PCO) with 3 Differing Opinions: Only PCO = Holding, Use The Marks Rule to Construe 3 Opinions — Law of the Case Doctrine & Mandate Rule (10th Cir.)

Harte v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cty. of Johnson, 940 F.3d 498 (10th Cir. 2019): Although we strive to ensure that the parties, the district courts, and the public understand our decisions, sometimes we falter. Plaintiffs previously appealed the…
Continue Reading

Copyrights: If Licensor Grants Licensee Unrestricted Right to Sublicense, Sublicense May Be Implied from Conduct Of Sublicensor & Sublicensee — Contracts: Covenants vs. Conditions & Effect of Violation on Use of License As Defense

Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8099 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2020): In this case of first impression in the circuit courts, we hold that a copyright licensee given the unrestricted right to grant sublicenses may …
Continue Reading

Hospital’s YouTube Videos Aspiring to Zero Errors Irrelevant to Med Mal Unless Relied on by Pl — Court May Deny Use of R. 32(a)(3) Video Dep If Wit Available, Even Tho Rule Says Dep Can Be Used for Any Purpose (Dicta?)—What’s Relevant? (Good Quote)

Berrios v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17329 (D.P.R. Jan. 30, 2020); BACKGROUND Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Angélica González-Berrios' Motion in Limine to Include and Exclude Evidence at Trial and Supplemental In Limine Request (Docket …
Continue Reading
Previous27282930313233Next

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