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

Denial of Rule 11 Motion Does Not Preclude Order to Show Cause Detailing Independent Grounds for Sanctions — Doubling Down on Frivolous Args., Baseless Attacks on Judge Warrant Sanctions — Dist. Ct’s Reliance on Out-of-Circuit Unpublished Opins. OK

Overcash v. Shelnutt, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28741 (11th Cir. Oct. 12, 2018): PER CURIAM: The facts underlying this dispute are—to put it charitably—sprawling and convoluted. They are also well known to the parties, so we address them here…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: “If a Party Gets 4 Extensions … & Blows Thru All of Them without Justification, He May Well Not Get a 5th” (Good Quote) — Dismissal Doesn’t Require Prejudice (That’s Just One Factor)

Cox v. UPS, Inc., 2018 WL 4922803 (3d Cir. Oct. 10, 2018) (unpublished): *1 If a party gets four extensions of his discovery deadlines and blows through them all without justification, he may well not get a fifth chance. The…
Continue Reading

Experts: Lack of Specialization Goes to Weight — Expert Not Strictly Confined to His or Her Area of Specialty But May Testify Concerning Related Applications (Good Quotes)

Cedar Lodge Plantation, L.L.C. v. CSHV Fairway View I, L.L.C., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28535, 2018 WL 4932716 (5th Cir. Oct. 10, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff, Cedar Lodge Plantation, L.L.C. ("Cedar Lodge"), challenges the district court's summary…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions Appropriate Because Appellant Ignored Rulings, Warnings and Sanctions Entered by District Court and Pursued Essentially All of the Frivolous Claims on Appeal

Momo Enters., LLC v. Popular Bank, 2018 WL 4846333 (7th Cir. Oct. 4, 2018) (unpublished): *1 The plaintiffs-appellants in this case filed this suit challenging the sales and foreclosures of a residential and a commercial condominium in Chicago and their…
Continue Reading

R. 37 Sanctions: Vigor of Review Fact-Dependent—“Substantial” Sxs Merit More — $50K Not Substantial — Prof’l, Personal Obligations No Excuse to Miss Deadlines — Opponent’s Non-Responsivenes Justifies Skipping Premotion Conf.

Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27263, 2018 WL 4561268 (5th Cir. Sept. 24, 2018): Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing their Fourth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force and state…
Continue Reading

Appeals: Review of S.J. Denial Limited to Pure Issues of Law If No Rule 50 Motion — Absent Objection, Instructions Reviewable Only for Errors Affecting Substantial Rights and Plain Error

T. Levy Assocs., Inc., v. Kaplan, 2018 WL 6002881 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2018): *1 Defendants Michael and Nina Kaplan (“Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan”) and Mrs. Kaplan’s company BLC Beauty, Inc. (collectively, “the Kaplans”) appeal from the District Court’s orders…
Continue Reading

Trying Issue Not in Pretrial Order: 5-Factor Test — Omission of Expert Opinion from Rept. Cured by Dep. — Stick Figure Demonstrative OK under 611 — OK to Rely on Hearsay in 803(6) Testimony — Spoliation after Expert Review Sanctioned

Callahan v. Pac. Cycle, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32953 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018): PER CURIAM: Virginia Callahan and her minor granddaughter T.G. ("Appellants") initiated this action against Pacific Cycle and Toys "R" Us ("Appellees"). Appellants alleged various …
Continue Reading

Sanctions Inappropriate under Rule 37 If 37(a)(1) Meet-&-Confer Duty Unsatisfied — Rule 11 Sanctions Unavailable If Safe Harbor Ignored — District Court Not Authorized to Suspend Fed. R. Civ. P.

Bush v. Chancery Court, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30239 (6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2018): Thomas K. Bush, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint and denying several motions he filed in this case related to…
Continue Reading

Reasonable Attorney’s Fees under § 1988 for a Prevailing Party May Be $0 — Inherent Power: While a Case May Be So Meritless as to Evince Bad Faith, Most Cases Require Proof of Subjective Bad Faith (Good Quote)

Martin v. Greisman, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30213 (10th Cir. Oct. 26, 2018): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Richard Greisman appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion for sanctions and its subsequent order…
Continue Reading

Texts Authenticated by 803(6) Testimony from Carrier Linking Them to Party’s Number + Contents Tying Them to Party — Admissibility: Incoming Texts Only OK for Context If They Are Offered for Non-Hearsay Purpose

Johnson v. State, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 620 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018): After a jury trial, Darius Johnson was found guilty of armed robbery and hijacking a motor vehicle in connection with the robbery of a pizza…
Continue Reading
Previous72737475767778Next

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