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

Prejudgment Interest — On Federal Claims, S.D.N.Y. Judges Split on Use of NY vs. Fed. Rate — Here, Fed. Rate Chosen, Even Though State Rate Necessarily Used for State Claims & Plaintiff Actually Earned 11% During Period

Montefiore Med. Ctr. v. Local 272 Welfare Fund, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13385 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2019) (R&R):  REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION SARAH NETBURN, [*2]  United States Magistrate Judge. TO THE HONORABLE RONNIE ABRAMS: In 2009, Plaintiff Montefiore …
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal Requires Non-Compliance with Court Order “Longer Than Just a Few Months” & “Characterized by Significant Periods of Inactivity” — Merely “Careless, Inconsiderate … Exasperating” Conduct Insufficient

Morgan v. Ams. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 205 (5th Cir. Jan. 4, 2019): Appellant A-Plus Contractors, L.L.C. ("A-Plus") and its owner, Appellant Stacy Morgan ("Morgan"), appeal the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their lawsuit under Federal …
Continue Reading

Court Lacks Inherent Power (IHP) to Bar Retrial after 2 Hung Juries Where No Prej’l Gov’t Misconduct — Exercise of IHP Must Be Proportionate & Not Contrary to Rule or Stat.—Can’t Create Rule in Conflict with Fed. Rules

United States v. Wright, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1541 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2019): The District Court barred a retrial of and dismissed the indictment against Defendant Raymont Wright with prejudice after two juries failed to reach a verdict. …
Continue Reading

Getting Dismissal with Prej. by Settling ≠ “Prevailing Party” — Citing Cases w/o Settlement = “Willful Obtuseness” & Objective Bad Faith under 1927 — Sua Sponte Despite 11(c)(5)(B) Limits on Post-Jmt. $ Sua Sponte (Dicta; Waived)

Bell v. Vacuforce, LLC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32196 (7th Cir. Nov. 14, 2018): Richard Bell brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Vacuforce, LLC, accusing it of publishing his photograph of the Indianapolis skyline on its website without a …
Continue Reading

Witness’s Denial (& Usually Admission & Maybe Inability to Recall) S/he Sent Texts Opens Door under R. 613(b) to Evidence of Texts Showing Bias under R. 608(b) — Questions Eliciting Admissible Answers ≠ Hearsay

United States v. Fernandez, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3463 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2019): A jury convicted Luis Fernandez of being a felon in possession of a firearm, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Fernandez appeals his conviction, contending that…
Continue Reading

Video Spoliation — Negligent Loss / Destruction Insufficient, Willfulness Required (4th Cir. Common Law) — Defendant’s Mistaken Belief Video Preserved Precludes Willfulness, Sanctions — Same Result under Rule 37(e) (Adopted During Case)

Boone v. Everett, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3818, 2019 WL 493681 (4th Cir. Feb. 7, 2019) (unpublished): Wally Boone, a Virginia inmate, appeals the denial of his motion for sanctions on the basis of spoliation against former Virginia correctional officer …
Continue Reading

RICO: Married Couple May = Associated-in-Fact Enterprise — No Heightened Structure Requirement — “Marriage Certificate Doesn’t Transform Mail/Wire Fraud Into Ordinary Household Management” (Good Quotes)

Al-Rayes v. Willingham, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3565 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019): The creditors in this case claim that a husband and wife worked together to commit multiple acts of mail and wire fraud over several years for …
Continue Reading

Rule 408 Offer of Settlement: While a Dispute Is Required, “Actual … Difference of Opinion” Enough — Communication Needn’t “Expressly & Outwardly Dispute Amount or Validity of Claim” — Tone & Context May Show Dispute Exists

Savy Surfers v. Wings of Minot ND LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14548 (D. N.D. Jan. 30, 2019): Before the Court is a motion in limine regarding the admissibility of an email filed by the Plaintiff, Savy Surfers, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Expert Witness Lacks Standing to Appeal the Striking of His or Her Testimony — Expert Reports: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) Doesn’t Require Disclosure of Communications Irrelevant to Expert’s Opinion

A.H. Lundberg Assocs. v. Tsi, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3562, 2019 WL 449695 (9th Cir. Feb. 5, 2019): MEMORANDUM* Expert witness Dr. Richard J. Martin ("Martin") and Martin Thermal Engineering, Inc. appeal the district court's imposition of …
Continue Reading

No Inherent Power (IHP) to Bar Retrial after 2 Hung Juries Where No Gov’t Misconduct Prejudicing Def. — Exercise of IHP Must Be Reasonable Response to Problem & Can’t Be Contrary to Rule, Stat—Can’t Use IHP to Create Rule in Conflict with Fed Rules

United States v. Wright, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1541 (3d Cir. Jan. 17, 2019): The District Court barred a retrial of and dismissed the indictment against Defendant Raymont Wright with prejudice after two juries failed to reach a verdict. …
Continue Reading
Previous65666768697071Next

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