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

Appeals: Party with Prejudgment Certification to Appeal Must File Petition in 10 Days — District Court Can’t Reenter or Recertify to Restart Clock — 10-Day Period Is Set in Statute, Is Jurisdictional, Not Claims-Processing

Groves v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31974 ((7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019): When a district court certifies an order for review before final judgment, parties have only ten days to petition us to hear the interlocutory appeal. Decades …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Not Substantively Addressing District Court’s Reasoning — Vexatious Litigant Injunction on Appeal Per Inherent Power & All Writs Act — Good Quote on Pro Se Status Not Insulating Party from Clogging Courts with Meritless Case

Henneberger v. Ticom Geomatics, Inc., 2019 WL 5688237 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2019) (unpublished):*1 Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss this appeal as frivolous, award the moving defendants-appellees1 costs in the amount of their attorney …
Continue Reading

Disqualification of Experts (2-Part Test) vs. Lawyers (2 Scenarios) — Courts Presume That Lawyers, But Not Experts, Received Confidential Information — Judicial Docs Presumptively Public Even If Not Relied on

Homeward Residential, Inc., Solely in Its Capacity As Master Servicer for the Option One Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-2 ex rel. Tr. & the Holders of Option One Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-2 Certificates, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189285 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31,…
Continue Reading

Bankruptcy Courts Have Power to Issue at Least Relatively Minor, Non-Compensatory Inherent Power Sanctions — Power Derived Not from Art. III But from Nature of Federal Judicial Institutions — Appeals Court Must Assess Jurisdiction of Lower Courts

Rosellini v. United States Bankr. Ct. (In re Sanchez), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32462 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2019): Per Curiam. In September 2013, Appellant Kenneth Rosellini filed a Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Lawyer for Violation of Court Order (Failure to Appear, Prosecute) Or Other Misconduct Not Undertaken for the Client’s Benefit without a Showing of Bad Faith (2d Cir.)

In re Sanchez (Rosellini v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court), 2019 WL 5596472 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the district court dated May 19, 2017, and…
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions: Clear & Convincing Evid. Only If Cost of Whole Case Shifted — Persistent Prosecution of Baseless Claim Enough — Can’t Rely on Client If “Glaring Red Flags” (Many Good Quotes)

Morrison v. Walker, 2019 WL 4782749 (5th Cir. Oct. 1, 2019): *1 Litigation abuse is nothing new. Since 1813, when James Madison was president, a one-sentence federal statute has authorized monetary sanctions against attorneys who misuse the litigation process.1…
Continue Reading

Advocate-Witness Rule (3.7) — Lawyer in Bad Faith Insurance Action Who Represented Plaintiff in Underlying Suit = Necessary Witness & Disqualified — Not All Participation in Bad Faith Suit Barred

Timlick v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174208 (D. Mont. Oct. 7, 2019): Defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois have filed a motion to disqualify Plaintiff Jay Timlick's counsel, Gary Crowe, pursuant…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine — Judicial Notice OK— Even If Not, Court Could Consider Internet Archive Corporate Witness’s Affidavits Authenticating the Technology from Other Cases Pursuant to Rule 104(a)

Pohl v. Mh Sub I, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182695 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 23, 2019): ORDER ON MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SANCTIONS This Court has considered, without hearing, parties' various motions. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine,…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: Evident Partiality—Arbitrator Must Disclose Ownership Interest in Administering Entity & Whether Either Party Has Had Prior Non-Trivial Business Dealings — When Party Has Constructive Knowledge of Evident Partiality

Monster Energy Co. v. City Bevs., LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31388 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2019): City Beverages, LLC, doing business as Olympic Eagle Distributing [*4]  (Olympic Eagle), and Monster Energy Co. (Monster) signed an agreement providing exclusive distribution…
Continue Reading

The Existence of a Default Judgment against a Foreign State Can Establish Venue in the District in Which It Was Entered If the Foreign State Attempts to Open Up the Judgment (28 U.S.C. § 1391(f)(1))

Gater Assets Ltd. v. AO Gazsnabtranzit, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167195 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2019): Before the Court are a number of motions relating to Plaintiff-Petitioner Gater Assets Limited's ("Plaintiff") attempt to enforce an arbitration award against Defendants AO Moldovagaz …
Continue Reading
Previous39404142434445Next

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