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

Class Actions: Improper to Certify Class 10% of Whose Members Were Not Injured — Culling Them Out Cannot Be Left to Claims Administrator — Need to ID the Uninjured Predominates—Rules of Evidence Must Be Followed in Doing So (Circuit Split/Variance)

United Food & Commer. Workers Unions & Emplrs. Midwest Health Bens. Fund v. Warner Chilcott Ltd. (In re Asacol Antitrust Litig.), 907 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2018): Drug manufacturer Warner Chilcott Limited pulled one of its products — Asacol…
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment: Evidentiary Issues Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Unsigned Dep. OK on SJ If No Inaccuracies Shown — Affidavit from Undisclosed Person Harmless Where Others Disclosed to Say Same Thing & No Deps Taken

PNC Equipment Finance v. Mariani, 2018 WL 6584123 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2018): Harry Carr (“Carr”) appeals the decision of the district court to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC (“PNCEF”) and…
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Generally Inapt in Contract Case unless Language Is Unambiguous — Sending Budget to Client’s Carrier at Its Rates ≠ Agreement to Rates — Seeking Indemnification Waives Privilege as to Bills & Commc’ns Going to Fee Reasonableness

Summary Judgment Generally Inapt in Contract Case unless Language Is Unambiguous — Sending Budget to Carrier at Its Rates ≠ Agreement to Rates — By Seeking Indemnification ,Privilege Waived as to Bills & Communications Going to Reasonableness of Fees Feld …
Continue Reading

“Costs” in Rule 41(d)—Which Allows Award If Plaintiff Dismissed Prior Action Asserting Same Claim against Same Def.—Includes Attorneys’ Fees (3-Way Cir. Split) — Derivative Action Rules Apply to LLCs, to Defense & Not Only If Board Malfeasance

Horowitz v. 148 South Emerson Assocs. LLC, 888 F.3d 13 (2d Cir. 2018): : Plaintiff-Appellant Montauk U.S.A., LLC ("Montauk") appeals from (i) the district court's dismissal without prejudice of its Lanham Act claims and motion for preliminary…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: It Is No Defense to Discovery Duties and Orders That Motion to Dismiss Is Pending — Violation of Order Caused by Negligence, Misunderstanding or Inability Won’t Justify Default or Dismissal (Good Quote)

Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30197 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2017): Phazzer Electronics, Inc. ("Phazzer") appeals from the district court's order granting Taser International, Inc.'s ("Taser") motion for sanctions. Taser Int'l, Inc. v. …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Discovery Rules Inadequate Where Party Not Only Failed to Produce But Made Affirmative Misrepresentations to Conceal Document’s Existence — $257,000 Awarded Apply Goodyear’s But-For Causation Test

Goldstein v. Bavelis (In re Bavelis), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32632 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2018): Quick Capital, a company owned by Ted Doukas, held a promissory note signed by George Bavelis, a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Quick …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: “Substantially Justified” Means “Not Justified to a High Degree” But “to a Degree That Could Satisfy a Reasonable Person” (Good Quote) — If Refusal to Admit RFA Is Substantially Justified, Court Lacks Power to Award Fees

In re Rael, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34483 (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* This appeal involves several orders entered in the bankruptcy proceedings stemming from the joint petition for bankruptcy relief filed by Robert and…
Continue Reading

May State Gov’t Assert Attorney-Client Privilege against Fed. Grand Jury Subpoena? — Circuit Split — 1st Cir. Says Yes; Maybe Not If State Official Subject of Criminal Inquiry — Appellate Jurisdiction: Advisory vs. Traditional Mandamus

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32961 (1st Cir. Nov. 21, 2018): Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training ("Department") petitions us for a writ of advisory mandamus to answer the following question: May a state…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction—Class Actions: No Ancillary Jurisdiction over Fee Dispute Where Court Lacks Control over Funds (Distributed) & Dispute Has No Impact on Timing Or Substance of Relief in Underlying Action

In re Cmty. Bank, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35841 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2018)): R. Bruce Carlson was co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs in In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1674 ("In …
Continue Reading
Previous70717273747576Next

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