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

Sanctions: Court Is “Particularly Vigilant in Requiring Proportionality Where Draconian Sanction of Dismissal Imposed” (Good Quote) — Due Process: Hearing Must Be Real, Not Sham — Liberal Pro Se Construction

Orozco v. Butler, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7721 (7th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019): Rogelio Orozco, an Illinois inmate, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against prison staff at Menard Correctional Center and Pontiac Correctional Center for violating his due-process …
Continue Reading

Substitution of Party on Appeal (FRAP 43(b)) OK Only If S/he Can’t Continue to Litigate, Not Just Doesn’t Want to Passing Reference to Issue in Opening Brief Doesn’t Preserve It for Review — “Bare Allegations” Don’t Satisfy RICO Mail Fraud, 9(b)

Miller v. Burt, 2019 WL 1219977 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Solomon Marcellus Miller appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).…
Continue Reading

Facebook Photos: May Impeach with Exhibits Not in Evidence — Authentication, Admissibility Not Required — No Surprise from Use in Closing of Exhs. in Evid. — Discovery Violation Doesn’t = Exclusion—R. 403 Requires > Possibility of Prejudice

Angeles v. Nieves, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1554, 2018 WL 3149551 (N.J. App. Div. June 28, 2018): PER CURIAM After an auto accident, a jury found defendant Carmen I. Nieves liable and awarded plaintiff Christian Angeles a $3,000,000…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Civil Contempt Imediately Appealable If No Continuing Lit. — Oral Injunction Enforceable (Circuit Split) — Court Can’t Credit Time Served, But May Decrease (Not Incr.) Fed. Sentence & Order Concurrent/Consec. Sentences

In re United States Bureau of Prisons, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2019): The U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appeals a contempt sanction related to its calculation of sentencing credits for federal prisoners. We reverse.…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Must Plaintiffs Show an “Administratively Feasible” Method for Determining Class Membership? — Circuit Split — Impermissibility of “Fail-Safe” and “Self-Identifying” Classes

Usry v. Equityexperts, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39651 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2019): Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 82) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Order without Final Fees Award Appealable If Parties Stipulate as to Amount — First Amendment No Defense to Sanctions for Suing (1) without Standing (2) Immune Defendants — Substantial Frivolous Claims Not Outweighed by Sound Claims

Collins v. Daniels, 2019 WL 908645 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico’s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM”), and …
Continue Reading

Magistrate Judge Decisions — May or Must a District Judge Consider New Evidence When Reviewing De Novo Findings & Recommendation? — Circuit Split — Standard of Review of Unobjected to Portions

Seehawer v. McMinnville Water & Light, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27372, 2019 WL 826454 (D. Or. Feb. 21,2019): United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 10, 2018. ECF 52. Magistrate…
Continue Reading

R. 37 Sanctions—Dismissal—R. 26(a) Violated by Disclosure of New Evid. for New Legal Theory at End of Discovery — R. 16(f) Violated Where Sched. Order Required Disclosure in Time to Allow Deps. — Court Needn’t Tick Through All Factors

Gomez v. Haystax Tech., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6618 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019): In this appeal, Appellant Ramona Rae Gomez, a former employee of NetCentrics and Haystax Technology (collectively, "Appellees"), asserts that Appellees discriminated against her in…
Continue Reading
Previous62636465666768Next

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