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 404(b): Prior Bad Act Evidence Offered to Prove Matters Other Than Characteristic “Has Always Been Problematic for the Courts” — OK to Prove Lack of Accident when Defense Makes It Clear It Will Assert Accident Defense

Fairbanks v. State, 2019 WL 1374382 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2019): In criminal cases, Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b)’s purpose is to prevent the jury from indulging in the “forbidden inference”—that a defendant must be guilty of the charged crime because,…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Is There a Necessity Requirement under Rule 23(b)(2)? — Circuit Split — Ascertainability Means Class Members Can Be (Not Have Been) Identified — Even 20 Members Sufficiently Numerous

J.S.X. v. Foxhoven., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43064, 2019 WL 1147144 (S.D. Iowa Mar. 13, 2019):  Plaintiffs J.S.X., C.P.X., and K.N.X. brought this action on [*3]  behalf of a putative class of individuals at the Boys State Training School…
Continue Reading

Attorney’s Fee Sanctions for Ex Parte Contact with Absent Putative Class Members (Source of Power?) — No Rule 26(a) Violation Where Their Affidavits Were Filed within a Month or Names Disclosed in Discovery

Weller v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34325, 2019 WL 1045960 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 4, 2019): Plaintiff Christopher Weller has filed a Motion to Strike and for Sanctions (doc. 47) against Defendants Dollar General Corp. and Dolgencorp,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Vexatious Litigant Injunction: 4 Factors (9th Circuit) — Failure to Give Notice of Possible Injunction (Imposed on Rule 11 Motion) Requires Vacatur

Block v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4089 (Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* and ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Anne Block appeals the district court's orders dismissing her amended complaint against defendants-appellees City of Gold Bar, Washington State…
Continue Reading

Website Authentication Depends on Purpose of Offer — Less Needed If Not for Attribution to Person — Legal Interpretation of Federal Rules of Evidence Reviewed De Novo — Did Motion in Limine Preserve Issue? (3 Factors)

United States v. Isabella, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7213 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2019): Rande Isabella was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) of persuading and attempting to persuade S.F., a 14-year-old girl, to "engage . . . in…
Continue Reading

While Factors Are Same for Severe Sanctions under R. 37(b) & Inherent Power, They Don’t Apply to Fraud on the Court (FOC) — Circuit Split on Burden of Proving FOC — Fraud Must Succeed to Be FOC, Otherwise Just Sanctionable Lies

Cone v. Tessler, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39381 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2019): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. 98) I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, Margaret Cone, filed this motion for sanctions against defendants and non-party, the University…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client: Firm May = Counsel to Trust Beneficiaries by Taking Fees They Paid in Response to Trustee Telling Them Firm Reps. Them, & by Indicating It Reps. Them — Can Dismiss Based on Affirmative Defense Only If Complaint Admits All Elements

Bistline v. Parker, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7503, 2019 WL 1187010 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2019): Plaintiffs are all former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("FLDS"), which illegally practices polygamy. On July 13, …
Continue Reading
Previous61626364656667Next

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