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

Inherent Power Sanctions: Court Has Inherent Power to Impose Monetary Sanction for Violation of Vexatious Litigant Order — Due Process Satisfied by Court Warning and Warning in Order Itself

Konarski v. City of Tucson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26459, 2018 WL 4462198 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal pro se from the district court's order imposing monetary…
Continue Reading

Expert Testimony: While Handwriting Analysis ≠ a Science, It Is an Experience-Based Expertise That, If Reliable, May Be Admitted — Videotaped Depositions in Criminal Trials: Admissibility Factors

United States v. Mallory, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24683 (6th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018) (compare the case posted on 6/2/16 rejecting handwriting analysis as a proper subject of expert testimony): A jury convicted Kurt Mallory, Margaret McKnight, and Susan…
Continue Reading

Vexatious Litigant Injunctions — 2d Circuit Standards — Injunction Should Not Categorically Bar Suits But Require Prior Court OK — Injunction Shouldn’t Extend Fully to State Court But May, e.g., Require Injunction Order to Be Appended to State Court

Vassel v. Firststorm Props. 2 LLC, 2018 WL 4492442 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2018): *1 Paul Anthony Vassel, pro se, sued several individuals and entities in connection with a foreclosure proceeding initiated against him after he allegedly defaulted on a…
Continue Reading

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (Video) — 11th Circuit Factors + Bad Faith Required for Adverse Inference — Concession That Video Might’ve Aided Other Side Negates Prejudice, As Does Fact Court Credited Testimony of Non-Spoliating Party

Alston v. City of Darien, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26621, 2018 WL 4492422 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: After George Alston was arrested for a minor traffic violation, he brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 …
Continue Reading

Discovery Sanctions — Default Judgment — Fourth Circuit Standards: Factors Considered for Default/Dismissal under Inherent Power and Separate Factors under Rule 37(b) — Party’s Failure to Act after Counsel’s Withdrawal = Evidence of Bad Faith

Davis v. United States, 2018 WL 4339710 (4th Cir. Sept. 11, 2018): *1 Larry Austin appeals the magistrate judge’s January 25, 2017, order granting the United States’ motion to compel his compliance with discovery requests, February 15, 2017, order granting …
Continue Reading

All Litigants, Inlcuding Pro Ses ,Must Comply with Orders or Face Sanctions (Good Quote) — Refusal to Confine Discovery Requests to Facts of Case + Defiance of Orders + Frivolous Interlocutory Appeals Warrant 26(g), 37(b)(2) & Inherent Power Sxs

Vaigasi v. Solow Mgmt. Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26044 (2d Cir. Sept. 14, 2018) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. This…
Continue Reading
Previous73747576777879Next

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