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 Safe Harbor — It Is the Burden of the Party against Whom Sanctions Are Sought to Prove Non-Compliance with Safe Harbor, Not the Burden of Movant to Prove Compliance

Darnell v. Arthur, 2019 WL 3451649 (6th Cir. July 31, 2019) (unpublished): Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor on her tortious-interference-with-business-relations and civil-conspiracy claims. Defendants cross appeal the district court’s refusal to impose Rule…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Gov’t Counsel’s Secretly Reading Inmates’ Communications with Counsel, Even after Bar Ethics Counsel Advised Stopping and Alerting Court, Violates Inherent Power and §1927 — “When in Doubt, Ask the Court” (Good Quote)

Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) (Note: The 1992 adn 1994ABA opinions cited in this decision have since been replaced by Model Rule 4.4(b), which is reprinted after the citations and quotations of the 1992 and…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Expert Exclusion — Scheduling Order Violation — When Only One Report Timely Submitted: “A Party Who … Put[s] All … Eggs in One Basket [Cannot] Complain When The Basket Proves Inadequate” (Good Quote)

González-Rivera v. Centro Médico Del Turabo, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21449 (1st Cir. July 19, 2019): Scheduling orders are essential tools for modern-day case management, and litigants flout such orders at their peril. This case, in which plaintiff-appellant Aglaed…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions Appropriate for Appeal “Brought without the Slightest Chance of Success” and Which “Thus Should Not Have Been Brought at All” (Good Quote)

Beter v. Murdoch, 2019 WL 2537524 (2d Cir. June 20, 2019) (unpublished):     SUMMARY ORDER   Plaintiff-Appellant Petra Beter, formerly a photographer for Michael Bloomberg’s first mayoral campaign, appeals from the judgment of the district court dismissing her lawsuit asserting various causes …
Continue Reading

§ 1782: Where Foreign Case Over, Fact Discovery May Permit Reopening Likely Not “For Use” — Foreign View Applicant’s Claims Totally Lack Merit Relevant to “Receptivity” — Can Magistrate Judge Decide 1782s? (See Dissent)

Khrapunov v. Prosyankin, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22062 (9th Cir. July 24, 2019): 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizes, but does not require, federal district courts to assist in the production of evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal.…
Continue Reading

While Magistrate Judges May Not Impose Rule 11 Sanctions in the Second Circuit [& Can Only Issue R&Rs], They May Impose Monetary [& Other Non-Dispositive] Rule 37 Sanctions

Errant Gene Therapeutics, LLC v. Sloan-Kettering Inst. for Cancer Research, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15860 (2d Cir. May 29, 2019) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court…
Continue Reading
Previous48495051525354Next

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