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

Bench Trials — Post-Trial Motions: Rule 59(e) Inapt for Newly-Discovered Evidence — Should Use 59(a)(2) — New Evidence of Spoliation Insufficient If, Indulging Adverse Inference, Result Would Not Change

Jenkins v. Anton, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (11th Cir. April 29, 2019): Jennifer Jenkins worked as a paralegal for David Anton for about nine months. She had a flexible work schedule, and records of the hours she worked …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Least Severe Sanction to Be Imposed — District Court May Deny Sanctions on Ground That Substantive Dismissal Is Enough, Or Could Add Dismissal Is Also on Rule 11 Grounds

Mr. Mudbug, Inc. v. Bloomin' Brands, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13432 (5th Cir. May 1, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Mr. Mudbug, Inc. ("MMI") appeals the dismissal of its breach-of-contract and detrimental-reliance claims on summary judgment. Bloomin' Brands, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Removal —§1447(c) Sanctions OK If No “Objectively Reasonable [vs. Frivolous] Basis,” Not If Position “Colorable” — §1446(b)(3) Limited to Developments in Case—Person Sued in Official Capacity Is Not Same As Individual

League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12124 (3d Cir. April 24, 2019): In 2017, the League of Women Voters and a group of Pennsylvania Democratic voters filed a state court lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Because R. 11 Focuses on Deterrence, It Doesn’t Conflict with Compensatory State Statute Allowing Jury to Award Fees for Frivolous Positions — When May and Shall Used in Same Rule, Inference Is Usual Meanings (Good Quote)

Showan v. Pressdee, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12754, 2019 WL 1891785 (11th Cir. April 29, 2019): *1 Plaintiff Galawezh Showan appeals from her $ 330,000 jury verdict against Defendants Patrick Pressdee and Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation (“Krispy Kreme”). For the…
Continue Reading

Federal Arbitration Act — Subject Matter Jurisdiction: “Look Through” Approach Applies to Motions to Confirm (§9) Just Like Motions to Compel (§4) and Motions to Vacate (§10) — Award Confirmed If “Barely Colorable” (Good Quote)

Landau v. Eisenberg, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13137 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019): Per Curiam. In June 2005, two groups from the Bobov Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York, agreed to arbitrate [*2]  certain disputes before a rabbinical…
Continue Reading

Arbitration/New York Convention: Panel Is Comparatively More Expert about Meaning of Its Own Rules, Better Able to Interpret & Apply Them, & Doesn’t Exceed Power by Reasonably Construing Them

Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte Int'l Gmbh, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11782 (11th Cir. April 23, 2019): Appellant Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. (INPROTSA) appeals from the district court's orders denying its petition to…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Ambiguous Contract, Like Silent One, Insufficient to Support Class Arbitration — Contra Proferentem Is Public Policy Rule, Not Helpful in Determining Parties’ Intent Nor Basis for Imposing Classwide Arbitration

Lamps Plus v. Varelam 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 (U.S. April 24, 2019): The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce covered arbitration agreements according to their terms. See 9 U. S. C. §2. In Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. …
Continue Reading
Previous57585960616263Next

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