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

Generally No Rule 37(d) Dismissal If Lesser Sanctions Suffice, But Court May Has Discretion to Dismiss for Flagrant Disregard & Willful Disobedience of Discovery Orders — 41(b) Dismissal for Violating Order Generally OK If Litigant Forewarned

Soto v. Miami Dade Cty., 2019 WL 286153 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Appellant, Maricelia Soto (“Soto”), appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil rights complaint against Miami-Dade County and two Miami-Dade County police officers…
Continue Reading

Voicemail Authentication: Under Rule 901(b)(5), Witness with Knowledge May Opine as to Identity of Voice — And That Exhibit (a Copy the Recording) Accurately Reflects the Message S/he Received [Implicitly Best Evidence, Too]

Commonwealth v. Bair, 2015 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 497, 120 A.3d 1054, 2015 WL 4263615 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2015): Paul Thomas Bair, III, appeals pro se from the order entered May 21, 2014, denying his PCRA petition,…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice May Be Taken of Undisputed Information on Government Websites, Including Court Proceedings — Doing So Does Not Convert 12(b)(6) Dismissal Motion into Summary Judgment Motion

Vice v. Coffee, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1008, 2019 WL 97025 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2019): Defendants James Botts, Rodney Coffee, Barry Thacker, and Kenneth Scarberry have filed motions to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Phillip Gene Vice.…
Continue Reading

Pro Se Pleadings from Lawyers Not Liberally Construed — No Rule 38 Sanctions Absent Separate Motion — “Just Damages” Include Fees, Which Need Not Be Itemized — Court May Award Fixed Amount as Penalty [Goodyear v. Haeger?]

Lipin v. Wisehart, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1534  (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* These consolidated appeals arise from a dispute over the ownership of real property in Delta County, Colorado (Property). Appellant Joan C. …
Continue Reading

RICO Proximate Cause/Injury Satisfied by Cost of Defending Sham Filing, Lost Sales Due to False Claims — Harm to Bus. Reputation? (State Law vs. Intangible) — >1 Can Be Directly Injured — Need Factual Allegations of Injury — RJR Issue Noted

Harmoni Int’l Spice, Inc. v. Hume, 2019 WL 286923 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019): The main issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged proximate cause under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 …
Continue Reading

Unless D.Ct. Conclusively Precludes Proof of Required Element of Claim, Order Unappealable — Striking Preferred Damages Approach, Making Case Unprofitable Not Enough — Sanctions & Attorney’s Fees Rulings Almost Always Interlocutory

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc., 2019 WL 272836 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2019): *1 The parties appeal and cross appeal from various rulings by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent and…
Continue Reading

Class Actions: American Pipe Doesn’t Protect Named Plaintiffs or Their Entities — No Tolling Where It “Would Result in an Abuse of Am. Pipe ”— Circuit Reviews D.Ct. Application of Own Rules for Abuse of Discretion

Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 2018 WL 6175580 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2018): *1 Plaintiffs Dr. Ari Weitzner and his professional corporation, Ari Weitzner M.D. P.C., challenge the District Court’s conclusion on summary judgment that their claims under the Telephone…
Continue Reading

Even Though Recipient Couldn’t Remember Context of Each Text, All Authenticated by Her Testimony She Often Texted with Sender, That Texts Were to/from His No., & by Contents — Hearsay: Sender’s Texts = Admissions; Recipient’s OK for Context

State v. Williams, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4914 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2018):  [*P1]  [**P1]  Defendant-appellant, Reginald D. Williams, appeals from his convictions following a jury trial. He raises the following assignments of error for review: 1. The …
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions for Refiling Twice-Dismissed Claims, Ignoring Discovery Orders, Initiating Similar Proceedings in State and Bankruptcy Courts [Extrajudicial Misconduct] & Filing Meritless Motions & Appeals

Eruchalu v. United States Bank, 2019 WL 244850 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 In these consolidated appeals, Godson Eruchalu appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendant First Option Mortgage’s amended motion for attorney’s…
Continue Reading

Court Has “Broad Fact-Finding Powers with Respect to Sanctions & Its Findings Warrant Great Deference” / Inh. Power “Sanctions Should Be Reserved for The Rare & Exceptional Case” (Good Quotes)

Johnson v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 537 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019): MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's denial of their motion for attorneys' fees. We affirm. 1.…
Continue Reading
Previous67686970717273Next

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