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

Strong Presumption of Public Access to SJ Materials Unaffected by Denial of SJ — Lesser (But Substantial) Presumption re Discovery, In Limine, Non-Dispositive Motions — “Unscrupulous Litigants Can Weaponize Discovery” (Good Quote)

Julie Brown v. Maxwell, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19981 (2d Cir. July 3, 2019): Intervenors-Appellants Alan M. Dershowitz ("Dershowitz"), Michael Cernovich ("Cernovich"), and the Miami Herald Company (with reporter Julie Brown, jointly the "Herald") appeal from certain orders of the …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Unexplained Failure to Produce Relevant Doc Created after Litigation Reasonably Foreseeable Entitled Adversary to At Least Permissive Adverse Inference — One Factor in Reversal of SJ

Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19755 (D.C. Cir. July 2, 2019): In 2012, the Congressional Office of Compliance determined that the Architect of the Capitol unlawfully transferred appellant Sunday Iyoha because of his national origin.…
Continue Reading

R. 30(d)(3), §1927, Inherent Power Sanctions for Deposition Obstruction: “Calls for Speculation,” “Don’t Guess,” “You Can Answer If You Understand,” “Not Qualified to Answer” / Improper Instructions Not to Answer

In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 Powershift Transmission Prods. Liab. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91557 (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2019): ORDER GRANTING IN PART FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL On April 3, 2019, defendant Ford …
Continue Reading

Rule 56(d) Motion for Additional Discovery “Should Be Granted Almost As a Matter of Course” and Be Construed “Generously” Unless Discovery Not Diligently Pursued (Good Quotes) — Factors for Court’s Consideration

Doe v. City of Memphis, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19225 (6th Cir. June 27, 2019): Jane Doe No. 2 appeals the district court's March 9, 2017 Order granting Defendant City of Memphis summary judgment, and the district court's May 22,…
Continue Reading

District Court Not Divested by Appeal of Power to Order Civil Contempt Sanction of $500/day for Failure to Pay Pre-Appeal Sanctions Award — While Pre-Judgment Civil Contempt Not Appealable, Post-Judgment Contempt Order = §1291 Final Decision

CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Hutchens, 2019 WL 2724333 (10th Cir. July 1, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Defendants-Appellants Sandy Hutchens, Tanya Hutchens, and Jennifer Hutchens (collectively “the Hutchens Defendants”), proceeding pro se, appeal from a post-judgment1 order finding them in …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Rule 11 “Duty to Conduct Reasonable Investigation into Law & Facts … Renews at Each Stage of Litigation” (Good Quotes) — 7th Circuit (Alone) Continues to Accept Disregard of Motion Requirement, Letter OK

McGreal v. Village of Orland Park, 2019 WL 2609341 (7th Cir. June 26, 2019): *1 The Village of Orland Park fired police officer Joseph McGreal in 2010. McGreal sued, alleging that the Village fired him in retaliation for remarks he…
Continue Reading

Experts/Daubert — Survey Results in Patent Infringement Case Must Be Adequately Tied to Claims — Questions Worded Broadly Enough to Capture Both Infringing and Non-Infringing Uses Not Helpful to Trier of Fact

Parallel Networks Licensing v. Microsoft Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 19442 (Fed. Cir. June 28, 2019): This is a patent case involving web pages. Parallel Net-works Licensing, LLC sued Microsoft Corporation in the United States District Court for the District…
Continue Reading

Does Arbitration Fail If Clause Names Unavailable (Out of Business) Arbitrator Or May Court Appoint a Sub under FAA §5? (Circuit Split) — Nonsignatory Enforcement of Arb Clause: Equitable Estoppel

Frazier v. Western Union Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51736 (D. Colo. Mar. 27, 2019): This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceeding Pending Arbitration Pursuant to Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act [#33]1…
Continue Reading
Previous51525354555657Next

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