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

Securities: Judicial Notice (JN) of Wayback Machine OK — Defs. Can’t Use JN to Insert Own Version of Events to Defeat Well-Pled Claims — JN of Transcripts for Acts, Not Substance, & of 10b5-1 Plan Only for Fact Sales Made Pursuant Thereto

In re Facebook, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166027 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019): This lawsuit stems from the revelation that Cambridge Analytica acquired the private Facebook data of millions of users and that, upon learning of this…
Continue Reading

Experts: Opinion Expressed As “Belief” Satisfies Daubert If It Reflects Conclusions Based on Actual Knowledge, Not “Mere Belief Or Speculation” — Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Exclusion Not Automatic

Turner v. Phillips 66 Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30880 (10th Cir. Oct. 16, 2019) (unpublished): Richard Turner appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Phillips 66 Company on his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)…
Continue Reading

Experts — Factual Basis for Opinion Generally Goes to Credibility, Not Admissibility — Cross, Contrary Evidence, Burden of Proof Are Means to Attack Shaky But Admissible Evidence (Good Quotes)

Klingenberg v. Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26216 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2019): Jeffrey Klingenberg and his wife sued Vulcan Ladder USA, LLC, and GP International Company, for a design defect and breach of express warranty. After …
Continue Reading

RICO — Federal Question Jurisdiction “Exists Only Where There Is a ‘Colorable’ Claim Arising under Federal Law” — Not If It Is “Insubstantial, Implausible, Foreclosed by [Precedent or] Completely Devoid of Merit” (Good Quotes)

Jones v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24567 (10th Cir. August 19, 2019) (unpublished): Alberta Rose Josephine Jones, proceeding pro se, sued numerous defendants after a large tree fell and damaged a rental property she co-owns in…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment Requires Willfulness & Bad Faith, Plus a Well-Pleaded Complaint Alleging a Sufficient Basis for the Judgment Entered — No Disqualification under R. 1.18 If Opposing Party’s Consultation Concerned Unrelated Matter

Thornton v. Hospitality Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2019 WL 4858252 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Douglas Gurney, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s award of expenses and entry of default judgment as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)…
Continue Reading

Facebook/Social Media Authentication — West Virginia Adopts Liberal, Circumstantial Evidence Approach — Testimony from Conversant, Witness to Party Sending or Receiving, or Distinctive Characteristics Sufficient

State v. Benny W., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 487 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. of App. Oct. 18, 2019): This appeal was brought by Benny W. (hereinafter "Petitioner") from the April 4, 2018, order of the Circuit Court of Ritchie County…
Continue Reading

RICO: Separate Roles Performed in Concert ≠ Enterprise — Must Factually Allege Structural Features Like Common Purpose, Relationship & Longevity Needed to Pursue Enterprise’s Purpose — Conclusory Allegations Insufficient

Sheikh v. Wheeler, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31093 (7th Cir. Oct. 18, 2019) (unpublished): Zafar Sheikh obtained a loan to purchase a supermarket. He fell behind with the mortgage payments, and the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. He then filed suit,…
Continue Reading
Previous40414243444546Next

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