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

Experts — Legal Malpractice Expert Who Describes Only How S/he Does Same Task for Same Client Fails to Establish What Defendant Should Have Done — Opinion Properly Excluded under 37(c)(1) as Overly Broad, Subjective, Non-Compliant with 26(a)

EQT Prod. Co. v. Phillips, 767 Fed. Appx. 626 (6th Cir. Mar. 29, 2019): This legal malpractice case arises from title opinions that attorney Dale Phillips ("Phillips") provided to EQT Production Company ("EQT") regarding EQT's rights and ownership in certain …
Continue Reading

Sanctions Issue Certified to 2d Cir. — May a Bankruptcy Court Order “Punitive Sanctions” under Its Inherent Power, § 105(a) or for Violation of Rule 3002.1(i)? — [May Any Court Issue Punitive Sanctions after Goodyear v. Haeger?]

In re Gravel, 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 2576 (Bankr. D. Vt. Aug. 12, 2019): MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Certifying Decision for Direct Appeal Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2) The chapter 13 trustee has filed a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)…
Continue Reading

Rule 11—No Sanctions for “Aggressive Lit. Strategy with Colorable (If Strained) Basis,” “Understandable” “Mix-Up” — “It Is One Thing to Lose … Another to Urge Something [Sufficiently] Ill-Founded” (Good Quotes)

MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24355 (7th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019): When all the dust is cleared away, this case is relatively straightforward: we must review a dismissal for lack…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Violation of Court Order — Orders Must Be Complied with Until Undone — Contempt Option If Party Has No Recourse to Permit Prompt Appeal Because Violation Cannot Be Undone

MacNaughton v. Harmelech, 2019 WL 3451275 (7th Cir. July 31, 2019): *1 The complex background of these consolidated appeals burrows through over a decade of litigation. Russian Media Group sued Ishaihu Harmelech and his company (“Harmelech Defendants”) in 2006. Attorney …
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Choice of Law, Like Arb., Clause, Invokable Only by Party with Standing to Enforce Contract — Collection Agent Can’t Enforce Arb Clause between Bank & Customer as 3d Party Beneficiary, Agent or Via Equitable Estoppel

Orn v. Alltran Fin., L.P., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20744 (3d Cir. July 12, 2019) (unpublished): Alltran Financial, a debt collector, appeals the District Court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration of Diane Orn's suit under the Fair Debt …
Continue Reading

Facebook Live Video Authenticated Like Any Video — By Witness to Recorded Events or Operator or Maintainer of Equipment Testifying That Video Accurately Represents The Subject Matter Depicted And Has Not Been Tampered With

People v Y.L., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3209 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. May 17, 2019): This decision supplements the oral decision of the Court rendered on March 21, 2019, in accordance with the Criminal Law of the State of New…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f), 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Factors (6th Cir.) — May a Party Appeal a Default Judgment without First Moving to Vacate It under Rule 60(b)? (Circuit Split) — Due Process & Default Judgments—What “Due Process” Meant in 1354

Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation, Inc. v. Larson, 2019 WL 3024726 (6th Cir. July 11, 2019): *1 After four years of perpetual delays, Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation obtained a sixth trial date to vindicate its claims that Karen Larson …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power (IHP) / R. 37 Discovery Sanctions for False Dep., Hiding Facts: Precluding Claims, Equitable Relief & Defenses, Fees — Factors for IHP/R. 37 Sanctions — and for Reassigning Case to Different Judge on Remand

Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23134, 2019 WL 3493900 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2019) (unpublished): The heart of the parties' dispute in this case is the ownership status of a trademark, "WINGS," which…
Continue Reading

Experts/Daubert: “The Expert Feeling Comfortable, without More, Is Not a Sound Methodology under Daubert” (Good Quote) — “High Threshold” to Exclude Expert for Conflict or Bias — Complete Lack of Bias Not Required

Aigner El Ansari v. Graham, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129997 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019): Defendants New York and Presbyterian Hospital ("Hospital") and Bridget Graham move to preclude testimony by Plaintiff Aigner El Ansari's expert, Dr. Yaakov Siegel. Dr. Siegel's report…
Continue Reading
Previous47484950515253Next

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