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

RICO: Causation May Be Proved Circumstantially — Duty to Prove Absence of Any Plausible Motive under Matsushita Is Limited to Antitrusr (Dissent on This) — Use of Related Crimes Not Barred by 404(b)

Waste Mgmt. of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. River Birch, Inc., 2019 WL 1550248 (5th Cir. April 10, 2019): *1 This appeal challenges the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants River Birch, Inc., Albert Ward, Frederick …
Continue Reading

Sanctions Unwarranted Where Names of Undisclosed Witness Disclosed in Discovery (Rules 37(c)(1), 26(e)(1)(A)) — No Spoliation (Video) Absent Reasonably Foreseeable Threat of Litigation

Cottrell v. Nicholson Props. LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10922 (3d Cir. April 11, 2019): Maryann Cottrell and Richard Holland, now proceeding pro se, appeal the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Nicholson Properties, George Nicholson, Sr., and…
Continue Reading

Appeals: If Appellant Seeks to Reinstate Bkcy. Ct. Opinion, Opin. Is Effectively Its Opening Brief, So It Need Not Restate Args in Opin.— Otherwise, It Can’t Raise Args. Not Raised in D.Ct. or BAP — No Inherent Power to Override Stat. — Estoppel OK

In re Reyes-Colon (Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon), 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019): *1 Edgar Reyes-Colon (“Reyes-Colon”), a licensed plastic surgeon specializing in facial cosmetic surgery, allegedly failed to repay certain debts. In November 2006, one of…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: District Courts Have Little Discretion to Refuse Enforcement of Awards under New York Convention, Limited to Article V Grounds (Good Quotes) — Court Defers to Arbitration Organization’s Interpretation of Own Rules

Stati v. Republic of Kaz., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11561 (D.C. Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished):   This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the briefs and…
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Advocate-Witness Rule (Rule 3.7) Bars Pretrial Work, Too — Doubts Resolved in Favor of Testimony, Not Advocacy — Hardship within Rule Must Be Unforeseeable

Wyndham Vacation Ownership v. Vacation Transfers Unlimited, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67189 (M.D. Tenn. April 19, 2019): Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Aubrey Givens and Kristin Fecteau Mosher (Docket Entry No. 24). For the reasons…
Continue Reading

Snapchat: Authentication v. Rule of Completeness: If Not Misleading or Relevant, No Need to Offer All Messages to Authenticate Some — Recipient’s Testimony Sender Was “Friend” Who Gave Her His Username + Content — Photos of Text Fair, Accurate

State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019): I. INTRODUCTION [*934] Sami S. Mrza appeals his jury conviction and sentencing for first degree sexual assault. Although he assigns multiple errors, we focus on two issues: the authentication requirement for "Snapchat" …
Continue Reading

R. 11 & Inherent Power Sanctions: Relitigating Issues without Offering New Facts Unnec’y to Preserve Review, Is Sanctionable — But Not Raising Issue Undecided by S. Ct. or Courts in Cir., Or Identifying Adverse Case & Seeking Different Result

Carmax Auto Superstores v. Sibley, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11504 (4th Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Montgomery B. Sibley appeals the district court's orders granting CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.'s ("CarMax") petition to confirm an arbitration award, denying…
Continue Reading

Party Can Agree to Court’s Jurisdiction to Compel Arbitration without Waiving Personal Jd Defense Otherwise — Intent of Parties to Contract Controls Whether Non-Signatory (Subrogee) Can Compel — Court Decides If 3d Party Can Compel v. Arbitrability

Halliburton Energy Servs. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11255 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): An oil rig caught fire and exploded in Ohio. Statoil USA Onshore Properties operated the rig, Halliburton Energy Services fracked at…
Continue Reading

Daubert/Experts: Focus = Helpfulness & Threshold Low (Relevance) — Judge Not to Supplant Jury, Rejection of Testimony Is Exception, Not Rule (Good Quotes) — Manifest Error Standard in Reviewing Expert Evidence Rulings — R. 50(b)=Anti-Ambush

Puga v. RCX Sols., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11229 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): IT IS ORDERED that the pending joint motion for clarification of this court's opinion is GRANTED and our prior panel opinion, Puga v. RCX …
Continue Reading
Previous58596061626364Next

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