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

The Line Between Lay/Expert Opinion Depends on Basis, Not Subject Matter, of Testimony (Good Quote) — Where Jury Not Instructed as to How to Assess Specific Testimony, Real Possibility of Jury Confusion Requires Reversal

United States v. Sarkissian, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31710 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Karen ("Gary") Sarkissian appeals from the judgment of conviction sentencing him to 57 months of imprisonment after a jury found him guilty …
Continue Reading

Rule 26(g) Sanctions Are Mandatory and “Particularly Appropriate when an Attorney Submits a Forged Discovery Document” — “Erroneous Assessment of the Evidence” = Abuse of Discretion

SPV-LS, LLC v. TransAm. Life Ins. Co., 2019 WL 124211 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): *1 The Estate of Nancy Bergman (the Estate), through its personal representative, appeals a district court order denying its motion for reconsideration of an adverse…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Arbitration Agreement Must Fall Outside the Exclusions of FAA §1 before Court May Stay Litigation & Compel Arb. Under §§3 and 4 — Parties Cannot Delegate §1 Issue to Arbitrator

New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 724 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019): The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private arbitration agreements. But like most laws, this one bears its qualifications. Among other things, §1 says that …
Continue Reading

§ 1782 Application Not Moot, Even If Foreign Evidentiary Record Closed, If Appellate Court Might Receive New Evid. in Some Circs. — Is Magistrate Judge R&R Reviewed De Novo or for Clear Error / Contrary to Law? — Case Law Split

Application of Qualcomm Inc.,  2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5716 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019): On August 20, 2018, applicant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") filed an Ex Parte Application for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. After Magistrate Judge…
Continue Reading

“Rule 11 Doesn’t Authorize Sanctions for Merely Frustrating Conduct” (Good Quote) — Where Plaintiff’s Dep. Contradicted Complaint, Failure to Withdraw Claims Warrants Fees for Post-Dep. SJ & Sanctions Motion Following R. 11 Letter

Cameau v Nat’l Recovery Agency, Inc., 2018 WL 4522104 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018) (R&R): I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT *1 Plaintiff Jeff Cameau (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in May of 2015 against Defendant National Recovery Agency, Inc. (“Defendant”), asserting violations of the…
Continue Reading

Facebook Messenger Texts from “Bob” Authenticated by Recipient, Who Knew Only One Bob; by Facebook Page Owner, Who Didn’t Send Them & Gave Access to Bob; & by Contents — Screenshots Given by Page Owner to Police, Thus Authentic

State v. Dickerson, 2018 Kan. App. Unpub. LEXIS 860, 2018 WL 5851444 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2018) (unpublished): Per Curiam: Robert Dickerson appeals his conviction for aggravated indecent liberties with a child. He raises several claims of error.…
Continue Reading

Appeals: When Court Will Review Issue Not Raised Below (4 Factors (6th Cir.)) — Sanctions: Failure to Serve Rule 11 Motion Requires Reversal, Even Though Issue Not Raised Below (Legal Issue, Error Clear, No Factual Development Needed, Ints. of Justice

Jodway v. Orlans, PC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35898 (6th Cir. Dec. 20, 2018): Plaintiffs husband and wife Timothy Jodway ("T. Jodway") and Alaina Zanke-Jodway ("A. Jodway") (together, "Plaintiffs") appeal from the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs'…
Continue Reading

Rooker-Felman Bars RICO Claim If Injury Caused by State Court Judgment & Bona Fides of Jmt At Issue — Incidental Attorney’s Fees Also Barred —Injury from Excessive Defense Pleadings Maybe OK—Sanctions: M.J. Order Unappealed to DCt Unreviewble

Tso v. Murray, 2019 WL 140992 (10th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019): *1 This case arises from plaintiff Gilbert T. Tso’s dissatisfaction with the child-support obligation established in his Illinois divorce from his ex-wife, Rebecca Murray, and with the procedures used…
Continue Reading
Previous68697071727374Next

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