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

Supreme Court: Bankruptcy Court’s Grant or Denial of Request for Relief from Automatic Stay = Final Order, Must Be Appealed within 14 Days — Appealability Likened to Dismissal on Personal Jurisdiction, Improper Venue & Forum Non Conveniens Grounds

Ritzen Grp., Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 526, 2020 WL 20102 (S.Ct. Jan. 14, 2020): Under the Bankruptcy Code, filing a petition for bankruptcy automatically “operates as a stay” of creditors’ debt-collection efforts outside the umbrella…
Continue Reading

Theory Abandoned at Summary Judgment Cannot Be Revisited on Appeal — Sanctions: If Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal, Court Must Find Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith (9th Cir.)

Silvia v. MCI Communs. Servs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36426 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Debbie Silvia appeals from the district court's summary judgment in favor of MCI Communications Services, Inc., Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., and…
Continue Reading

Social Media Photo Subject to Traditional Authentication [901] — Once Photo Admissible to Show Gang Membership, Caption Corroborating That Not Offered for Truth But for Fact Statement Was Made, Thus Not Hearsay

People v. Thomas, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8244 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2019) (unpublished): Defendant Byran Antoine Thomas attended a birthday party on March 21, 2014. He shot and killed one of the other partygoers, who was a…
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Where Lawyer in Firm A Is Adverse to Firm B, Solicits & Obtains Offer from Firm B Which Is Immediately Withdrawn Because Conflict Exposed, Lawyer Was Never “Associated” With Firm B, Firm B Not Disqualified

Hinker v. County of Cape May, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6517 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2020): This matter having come before the Court upon the Motion [Docket Number 15] by Plaintiffs, Jonathan and Jacqueline Hinker, for an Order disqualifying the law …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Due Process (DP): Notice Against Firm ≠ Notice Against Lawyers — 1st Mention in Reply Brief Denies Ability to Respond — DP Reviewed De Novo — Can Firm Be Sanctioned under 26(g)(3) or 37(b)(2)(C)?

KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1616 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2020) (unpublished): One thing is certain: discovery abuses by the defendants infected this case—seemingly beyond repair, leading to a default judgment against the defendants …
Continue Reading

RICO: Possibility That Third-Party Payor Was Derivatively Harmed by Statements Pharma Co. Made to Doctors or Patients Doesn’t Support RICO Liability — MDL Court’s Dismissal Order in Unconsolidated Case Is Immediately Appearlable

Med. Mut. of Ohio v. AbbVie Inc., 2019 WL 5887194 (7th Cir. Nov. 12, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Medical Mutual of Ohio contends in this suit under the civil-liability section of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO…
Continue Reading

When Bankruptcy Courts May Decline to Enforce Arbitration Clauses: 2 Requirements — Under Rule of Orderliness, One Panel Can’t Overrule Another Absent Unequivocal Decision of Supreme Court or Circuit En Banc

In re Henry, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37127 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2019): PER CURIAM: The opinion previously filed in this case is withdrawn and the following is substituted. Years after Stephanie Marie Henry took out a student loan, she …
Continue Reading

Disqualification of Former Government Lawyer — Under NY Rule of Prof’l Conduct 1.11(a)(2), “Matter” = Discrete Transaction Or Set of Them & “Substantial Participation” Is Substantive, Affecting the Merits

Ferncliff Cemetery Ass'n v. Town of Greenburgh, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219042 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2019): Before the Court are Defendant Town of Greenburgh's motions to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel Frederick W. Turner, (Doc. 30), and dismiss the Amended Complaint, (Doc.…
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication by Course of Dealing — Details and History of Communication with Specific User May Suffice to Authenticate Post As Emanating from That User, Just As Past Pattern of Phone Call May Authenticate ID of Caller

Commonwealth v. Agro, 2019 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 775 (Mass. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2019) (non-precedential): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 After a jury-waived trial in the Central Division of the Boston Municipal Court Department, the trial judge…
Continue Reading
Previous33343536373839Next

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