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

Social Media Photographs — Authentication Depends on Proffer — If Offered for Identification, Only Fair & Accurate Portrayal Test — To Link Person to Photo for Other Purposes, Link Person to Page

Commonwealth v. Ford, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3598 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 23, 2019) (non-precedential): Raheem B. Ford appeals from the July 18, 2018 judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his …
Continue Reading

Appealability of Attorney Criticism Absent Sanctions — Good Discussion of Spectrum — Actual Finding of Prof’l Misconduct Appealable — Warning Given in Denying Sanctions Not, Nor Is Referral to Disciplinary Comm. without Finding of Misconduct

Montalto v. Miss. Dept. of Corrections, 2019 WL 4296699 (5th Cir. Sept. 11, 2019): *1 Mississippi inmate Stephen Montalto filed a § 2254 petition for habeas relief seeking reinstatement of his earned-release supervision (ERS) and trusty time. Montalto alleged that…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power: Court Should Fashion Sanction That Is “Direct Response to the Harm” — Defiance of Court Order = Bad Faith — Court Need Not Use “Magic Words ‘Bad Faith’” (Good Quotes) — $7,000 Sanction for Ignoring Order to Pay $700 OK

Ibezim v. George Grp., Inc., 2019 WL 4668135 (11th Cir. Sept. 25, 2019) (unpublished): *1 This is a fight over fees. The appellant Michael Ibezim sued The GEO Group, Inc., his former employer, for employment discrimination. He lost. But before…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions for Factually Misleading Complaint That Failed to Attach or Fully Explain Terms of Contract on Which It Relied — Compensatory Attorney’s Fees Appropriate Regardless of Receipient’s Indemnification by Third Party

Superior Consulting Servs., Inc.v. Steeves-Kiss, 2019 WL 4318903 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2019): MEMORANDUM* Superior Consulting Services (“Superior”) appeals the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of its First Amended Complaint for common law unfair competition and conversion, as well as…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions: Error to Award Attorney’s Fees Sua Sponte Or to Issue Any Sanction on Withdrawn Claim — Can’t Seek Leave to Amend after Judgment Entered without Also Moving to Set Aside Judgment

Wolfington v. Reconstructive Ortho. Assocs. II PC, 2019 US App Lexis 24770 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019): This is an appeal from the District Court's entry of judgment on the pleadings against appellant-plaintiff Andrew Wolfington on his claim under the …
Continue Reading

RICO Statute of Limitations Not Tolled by Defendants’ Refusal to Concede (& Allegedly Lying about) Misconduct — No Equitable Tolling If Plaintiff in Fact Aware of Misconduct

Bernegger v. Dep't of Revenue, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26395 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Peter Bernegger challenges the dismissal of his claims against two Mississippi Department of Revenue employees in their individual capacities. Because…
Continue Reading

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Is Claim-Specific — First-to-File Rule (Factors) and Anticipatory Declaratory Judgment Exception — DJ Actions (Factors As to Appropriateness)

J.M. Smucker Co. v. Promotion in Motion, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193896 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2019): Currently pending is Defendant Promotion in Motion's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff J.M. Smucker Company filed a Brief…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions for Disqualification Motion—DQ Apt Only If Lesser Remedies Unavailable — Factors for Advocate Witness DQ — Type, # of Violations Guide Sanction — Papers “More About Vitriol … Than Fact Or Legal Principle” (Good Quotes)

Finley Grp., Liquidating Agent For RedF Mktg., LLC v. Roselli (In re RedF Mktg., LLC), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3311 (W.D.N.C. Bankr. Oct. 21, 2019): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS This matter is before the Court…
Continue Reading

Removal: Is Denial of Request for Admission That Claim Doesn’t Exceed $75,000 Sufficient to Establish Amount in Controversy? — Case Law Split — Settlement Offer Over $75K Can Be “Other Paper” Supporting Removal

Streicher v. Sam's East, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34052 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2019): Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court. (Doc. 4.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that Defendant's removal was timely…
Continue Reading
Previous38394041424344Next

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