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 11 Sanctions: Failure to Heed Dismissal of Case for Lack of Diversity, and Refiling in New District with Additional Defendant, Is Frivolous — Even If New Def. Is the Real-Party-in-Interest, Every Party’s Citizenship Counts

Zausa v. Zausa, 2018 WL 5734265 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2018): *1 Attorney Maurice James Salem believes that if he files a lawsuit in an Illinois federal district court, which dismisses the case for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, he …
Continue Reading

Texts/Hearsay — Adoptive Admissions (Factors) — Unique Nature of Texts (“Truncated, Raw & Immediate”) — Deflection vs. Acquiescence — Jury Must Be Instructed It Can’t Consider the Statements Unless It Finds Adoptive Admission Factors Satisfied

State v. Hill, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 2837 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2018): An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth." ER 801(d)(2)(ii). A jury convicted Frederick …
Continue Reading

RICO: Loss of Unvested Work Comp Benefits ≠ Injury to Business or Property — In California, That Right Is Wholly Statutory and Not Vested until Reduced to Final Judgment

Black v. Corvel Enter. Comp, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35309 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished): The district court dismissed Appellants' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: “Dismissal Must Be a Sanction of Last, Not First, Resort” (Good Quote) — Disregard of Scheduling Order, Even with Warning, Not Enough without Consideration of Lesser Sanctions and Other (3d Circuit) Factors

Rawls v. Gibbs, 741 Fed. Appx. 108, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31014, 2018 WL 5734259 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2018): (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Sameech Rawls appeals the District Court's dismissal of his complaint for…
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

Inherent Power & 41(b) Sanctions: Dismissal with Prejudice upon Disregard of An Order Generally OK If Party Forewarned — Finding Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Suffice May Be Implicit

Novero v. Duke Energy, 2018 WL 5013823 (11th Cir. Oct. 16, 2018): PER CURIAM: In this employment action, Plaintiff Primo C. Novero appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure …
Continue Reading

Facebook Posts, Photos Authenticated by Messages betw Defendant (D) & Known Assocs, Contents of Posts, Witness Testimony That He Set Meetings with D by FB and D Came, Selfies, Birthday Message Posted on D’s Birthday, No Evidence Anything Planted

People v. Delgado, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8357 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2018): I. Introduction Defendant Alejandro Ernesto Hernandez-Delgado appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a))[1] and …
Continue Reading

Dismissal Sanction: Factors (11th Cir.) — Disregard of Order, If Warned, Enough — Implicit Finding Lesser Sanctions Insufficient OK — Party Personally Responsible — No Recusal Based on Rulings, Standard Consumer Transactions

Barone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34589 (11th Cir. Dec. 10, 2018): PER CURIAM: John Barone, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of his lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells…
Continue Reading

Experts: “Rule 702 Is a Screening Procedure, Not an Opportunity to Substitute the Trial Court’s Judgment for That of a Jury” (Good Quote) — Updated Guidelines after Trial Not Considered on Appeal, Potential Basis for New Trial Motion

United States v. Barton, 2018 WL 6374201 (11th Cir. Dec. 6, 2018): *1 Robert Barton was charged by a grand jury sitting in the Middle District of Florida, tried by a petit jury, and convicted in a single count of…
Continue Reading
Previous71727374757677Next

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