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

Federal Court Has Personal Jurisdiction (JD) in Class Action If It Has General JD over Def. Or Specific JD Based on Named Plaintiff Alone — 23(f) Appeal OK from Any Order Functionally Equivalent to Motion Denying Certification

Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020): Florence Mussat, an Illinois physician doing business through a professional services corporation, received two unsolicited faxes from IQVIA, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Pennsylvania. …
Continue Reading

Disqualification—Advocate-Witness Rule (3.7) Is Trial-Oriented, Doesn’t Bar Pretrial Participation — Motion Timely Only after Dismissal Motions, Discovery Determine Whether Trial Will Occur & High Hurdle of Necessity of Testimony at Trial Satisfied

Andrade v. City of Hammond, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31042 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2020): This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Certain Defense Counsel as Material Witnesses [DE 16] filed by Plaintiff Jose Andrade on…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Good Quotes — FRAP 38 Not Invoked Lightly — No Sanctions for Choosing to Fight Uphill Battle — Losing ON Merits ≠ Utterly WITHOUT Merit — Unlikely to Succeed, Deferential Std. of Review Not Enough

Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063 (7th Cir. Mar. 6, 2020): This appeal presents two questions: first, whether we should reopen our court's prior judgment in this case, see Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 901 F.3d 803 …
Continue Reading

RICO: §1965(b), Not ’65(d), Governs Personal Jurisdiction (Circuit Split) — What Are the Ends of Justice within ’65 (b)? (Circuit Split) — Not Merely Suffering Harm in Forum — [Is Hub & Spoke Enterprise Viable?]

Laurel Gardens, LLC v. McKenna, 2020 WL 202215 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2020): *1 Plaintiffs, Laurel Gardens, LLC (“LG”), American Winter Services, LLC (“AWS”), Laurel Garden Holdings, LLC (“LGH”), LGSM, GP (“LGSM”), and Charles P. Gaudioso, appeal from the order…
Continue Reading

Recusal—28 U.S.C. §144 vs. §455 (w/Text): Different Procedures, Same Standards — DQ: Only Past, Present Client Has Standing to Seek Disqualification — Pleadings of Conflicted Counsel Not Void — Clerk Must Initiate Default Judgment (R. 55)

Joseph v. City of San Jose, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37611 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE; DENYING MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION; DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; …
Continue Reading

Post-Judgment Inherent Power Sanctions against Party Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction (PJD) OK — Is Defaulting Sanctionable? — Interactive Website As Basis for PJD: Factors — Purposeful Direction Still Needed

Fidrych v. Marriott Int'l, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6477 (4th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020): Bud Fidrych and his wife, both South Carolina residents, sued Marriott International in South Carolina district court after Fidrych was injured at the Boscolo Milano, a …
Continue Reading

If Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Per FRCivP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) & Refiles in State Court, Fed. Ct. Can’t Award Costs of First Action Per 41(d), Even Tho It Could If 2nd Action Were Filed in Fed. Ct.—First Impression at Circuit Level—Dist. Cts. Split

Sargeant v. Hall, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6438 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020): Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), if a plaintiff who voluntarily dismissed an action files a second action against the same defendant based on or …
Continue Reading

RICO Claim Must Be Colorable to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — No Association in Fact Enterprise Stated by Allegations That Are Conclusory, Fail to Connect Conduct to Enter. Or to Allege Plausibly Continuing Unit

Lynn v. Brown, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3802, 2020 WL 598999 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (unpublished): Rosemary Ann Lynn, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint against Defendant Andrew George Brown, III (No. …
Continue Reading
Previous28293031323334Next

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