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 601 vs. 702: State Standards for Experts Imported in Diversity Case Where Sufficiently Intertwined with Governing State Substantive Law (Here, Med Mal) — Rule 702 Must Also Be Satisfied (4 Circuits So Far Agree)

Coleman v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 716 (5th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): Leslie Latrice Coleman, proceeding pro se, raises numerous arguments challenging the district court's grant of summary judgment on some of her claims and the dismissal…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782’s “For Use” Requirement Is Satisfied If Litigant Intends to Offer the Evidence in the Foreign Proceeding, Regardless of Whether It Is Received — Admissibility/Judicial Receptivity Is for Foreign Court to Decide

In re Bernal, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212722 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 18, 2018): ORDER ON BILBO DEVELOPMENT LLC'S AND MORRISON USA, LLC'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER This matter is before the Court on…
Continue Reading

Removal: Is There a Futility Exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) — Which Requires Remand If the District Court Lacks or Loses Subject Matter Jurisdiction — Allowing a District Court to Dismiss a Removed Case If Remand Would Be Futile? (Circuit Split)

Ratliff v. LTI Trucking Servs., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 2, 2019): This matter is before the Court on Defendant LTI Trucking Services, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (ECF No. 4)…
Continue Reading

Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(2) Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss without Prejudice Must Be Denied If Grant Would Strip Defendant of Viable Defense That Might Not Be Assertable If Plaintiff Were to Refile — Limits of Expressio Unius & Series-Qualifier Canons

United States ex rel. Vaughn v. United Biologics, LLC, 907 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 2018): **1 The opinion issued September 7, 2018 is withdrawn by the panel, and the following is issued in its place: The plaintiffs-relators initiated a qui …
Continue Reading

Hearsay — Declaration against Interest — Court Must Consider All Facts & Circumstances to See If Statement Is in Fact So Contrary to Declarant’s Interest That S/he Must’ve Believed It to Be True — Email Evid.: Redact Hearsay to Admit Remainder

In re Estate of Smith, 2018 Ida. LEXIS 216 (Idaho Dec. 18, 2018): This case centers on the estate of Victoria H. Smith. The magistrate court ruled that Victoria died intestate after finding that her will was a product …
Continue Reading

Rule 103(b): If Court Denies Motion in Limine But Invites More Foundation at Trial, Is MIL Ruling “Definitive”? (Probably) — Emails Downloaded 16 Yrs Earlier from Unknown Computer by Unknown Person Who Could’ve Altered Them Not Authenticated

United States v. Johns, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35543 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2018): This case is about two women, Johns and Westphal, who maintained a secret lesbian relationship for nearly a year. When Westphal attempted to end the…
Continue Reading

Rule 803(6): Email from Ex-Opposing Lawyer Years after Litigation Ended, Solicited for Purposes of New Case, Not a Business Record (BR) of Soliciting Firm &, Even if BR of Sending Firm, Is Untrustworthy—R. 1006 Summary: Summed Data Must Be Admissible

Harpst v. George Fleming & Fleming & Assocs., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 10719 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018): After a law firm settled tort claims against a drug manufacturer on behalf of approximately 8,000 clients, about half the …
Continue Reading

Experts — Report to Contradict or Rebut Opposing Expert Must Be Served within 30 Days, Absent Court Order — General Discovery / Disclosure Deadline ≠ Relevant Court Order — Can’t Supplement with New Opinions Based on “Theories Evolv[ing]”

Rodgers v. Beechcraft Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35028 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2018): On March 17, 2013, James Rodgers and Christopher Evans were passengers on a Beech Premier 390 jet airplane, flying from Tulsa, Oklahoma to South Bend,…
Continue Reading
Previous69707172737475Next

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