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 Request Limitation of Award Based on Inability to Pay or to Offer Evidence Showing Same Waives Issue — Does Judge Have Ethical Duty to Refer Offender to Disciplinary Authorities?

Young v. Smith, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27331 (3d Cir. Sept. 25, 2018): Appellant Cynthia Pollick appeals the District Court's order denying her fee petition, imposing sanctions in the aggregate amount of $25,000, and referring Pollick to the Disciplinary …
Continue Reading

Witness Litigation Privilege Gives Absolute Immunity from Civil Action for Testimony & Prep, Bars RICO Claim vs Expert — Common Law Immunities Must Be Expressly Eliminated — Perjury ≠ Predicate Act — Civ, Crim RICO Don’t Always Have Same Reach

Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in …
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Court Can’t Read Improper Purpose into Document Well-Grounded in Fact & Law unless Improper Purpose Is Objectively Ascertainable — Disagreement About Law ≠ Frivolous — Arg. Must’ve Been Rejected by Well-Established Case Law

Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in …
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Failure to Stop 3rd Party Doc Destruction = Bad Faith Spoliation — § 285 Exceptional Case Award Limited to Fees Caused by Misconduct — Improper to Pay Fact Witnesses Contingently, unless Patent Assignment / License Involved

Rembrandt Techs., LP v. Comcast of Fla./Pa., LP (In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig.), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22689 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018): This appeal derives from a multitude of patent infringement actions that plaintiffs-appellants Rembrandt Technologies,…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782’s “Resides Or Is Found” Requirement Is Satisfied Only If the Relationship of the Person to the District Would Warrant Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction over Him or Her

In re Ruiz, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180262 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2018): Petitioners in the above-captioned [*4]  actions have applied for court orders to conduct discovery for use in foreign proceedings, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section …
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal without Prejudice Warranted for Refusal to Arbitrate as Ordered by Court — Circuit Has Jurisdiction Despite Microsoft — No Review of Interlocutory Orders After Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

Griggs v. S.G.E. Mgmt., LLC, 2018 WL 4625167 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2018): 1 When Plaintiff-Appellant Jernard Griggs began working as an Independent Associate (“IA”) for Ignite, he agreed to Ignite’s Policies & Procedures, which includes an arbitration clause covering…
Continue Reading
Previous76777879808182Next

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