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

Rule 11 Sanctions — Filing Claim That Was Required To Be Asserted as Compulsory Counterclaim in Prior Action Is Frivolous, As Is Asserting As Grounds for Remand Argument Nearly Identical to One Earlier Rejected

Parnoff v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6271531 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. In 2011, the home …
Continue Reading

RICO: Party Who Signed Security Agreement on Promise Bank Wd Destroy It after Using It to Defraud Regulators Not Causally Harmed by Fraud on Regulators — Res Judicata (State Court Judgment for Bank) Bars RICO Claim vs Bank

Devon Drive Lionville, LP v. Parke Bancorp, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31412 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 2019): Those who agree to deceive the government may find themselves deceived. The parties here were in real estate together. Their business relationship…
Continue Reading

Unsolicited Email to Lawyer Whose Website Doesn’t Encourage Submission of Confidential Info Doesn’t Create Prospective Client Relationship Warranting Disqualification — Efficacy of Screens — Good Quotes Anti-Disqualification

Mihuti v. Mid Am. Clinical Labs., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207179 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 2, 2019): I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Layla Christina Mihuti's motion to disqualify Defendant Mid America Clinical Laboratories, LLC (MACL)'s…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Not to Deter Cases of First Impression (Good Quote) — Position Not Frivolous Even If Only (Non-Controlling) Circuit Decision Is to Contrary — Loss on Summary Judgment ≠ Sanctionable

Rule 11 Sanctions Not to Deter Cases of First Impression (Good Quote) — Position Not Frivolous Even If Only Circuit to Decide Issue Came Out Other Way — Loss on Summary Judgment ≠ Sanctionable  Lewis v. Hiday & Ricke, P.A., …
Continue Reading

Disqualification: Ex-Govt. Lawyers & Rule 1.11 — Meaning of “Matter,” “Personal & Substantial Participation” (1.11(a)) — Rule 1.9(a) Ousted by Rule 1.11 — Govt. Filing Doc in Court Means It’s Not Confidential Govt. Info

Martley v. City of Basehor, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206058 (D. Kan. Nov. 27, 2019): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On October 9, 2019, the Court convened a motion hearing to address Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Patrick Reavey as Plaintiff's Counsel (ECF …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction Should Be Sought in District Court in First Instance — Circuit-Wide Filing Injunction OK If Multiple Courts, Claims Have Been Raised

Clements v. 3M Elec. Monitoring, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35220 (115h Cir. Nov.25, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Louis Clements, proceeding pro se, sued 3M Electronic Monitoring ("3M")1 in federal court alleging that an ankle-monitoring bracelet 3M manufactured was …
Continue Reading

Doubts Resolved in Favor of Disqualification But Movant’s Burden Is Heavy — Substantially Related = (1) Received Confidential Info Usable against Ex-Client Or (2) Facts of Old Representation Are Relevant to New

Fragoso v. Piao, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175523 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2019): This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Zhejun Piao ("Piao"), Miyeon Choi ("Choi"), and Massage 4 All NJ 7, LLC's (the "business") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Disqualify …
Continue Reading
Previous36373839404142Next

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