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

Even When Intentional Spoliation Occurs, Court Has Discretion Not to Issue Adverse Inference Instruction Or Other Severe Sanction — Ultimately, Significance of Spoliation Evidence Is for the Jury to Weigh

Lexpath Techs. Holdings v. Welch, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21034 (3d Cir. July 30, 2018): * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Defendant-Appellee, Brian Welch, …
Continue Reading

When District Court May Sanction for Frivolous Appeal — Class Actions: Sanctions for Objector Blackmail — Failure to Accept Stip As Proof of Bad Faith — Misrep + Frivolousness = Bad Faith—FRAP 7 (Appeal Bond) Requires Dist Ct to Prejudge Appeal

In re Petrobras Secs. Litig., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161898 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2018): Those who file objections to class action settlements may themselves be pursuing widely varying objectives, ranging from the useful to the self-serving. On the positive…
Continue Reading

Privilege: Intentional Waiver by Predecessor Corp. (1 of 2 Merging Cos.) Extends to Post-Merger Communications on Same Subject Matter by Successor — 502(b) Fairness Is Touchstone — Mandamus Apt for Issue of First Impression

In re OptumInsight, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13483, 2017 WL 3096300 (Fed. Cir. July 20, 2017): This petition arises out of an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California compelling OptumInsight, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Does Not Excuse Party from Appearing for Properly-Noticed 30(b)(6) Deposition Simply by Objecting, But Does Not Require Sanctions, Either — Choice of Sanction Should Be Guided by Concept of Proportionality (Good Quote)

Ranowsky v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 2018 WL 3894287 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 14, 2018) (unpublished): *1 In the midst of an extensive restructuring at the Office of the Inspector General for Amtrak, Kathleen Ranowsky was fired from her job as…
Continue Reading

Social Media Posts Showing Confusion Admissible on Trademark PI Motion: (1) Show Declarants’ State of Mind, (2) Have Independent Evidentiary Significance Tending to Show Confusion — Alternatively, Usable on PI Even If Hearsay

Canes Bar & Grill of S. Fla. v. Bay, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168669 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2018): ORDER ADOPTING IN PART AND MODIFYING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Electronic Spoliation: Rule 37(e) Forecloses Reliance on Inherent Power — Sanctions Properly Denied Where Spoliations Unlikely and Any Gap in Production Relatively Insignificant

MEMORANDUM* Newberry v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26420, 2018 WL 4450831 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018) (unpublished): The plaintiffs-appellants in this case are a subset of residents at a San Bernardino apartment complex who …
Continue Reading

RICO: Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine Inapplicable to RICO Conspiracy in 11th Cir. (Cir. Split) — Incontestability Clause Doesn’t Bar RICO Claim over Fraudulently Procured STOLI Policies (RICO Dams. Won’t Void Policies)–Waiver of Choice of Law

Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. v. Imperial Premium Fin., LLC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26461, 2018 WL 4443054 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018): These [*3]  two appeals arise from dueling lawsuits pitting Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Court of Federal Claims Has Inherent Power, and Power under Its Rule 11, to Impose Vexatious Litigant Injunction against Recidivist Violator — No Further Motions on Subject Matter Allowed

Evans v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24496 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 29, 2018): Appellant David O. Evans appeals an order of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims dismissing his claims for military back pay, disability retirement benefits, and…
Continue Reading

Signature Block on Email Containing Name, Job Title, Firm Name & Contact Info Renders Email a Signed Writing for Purposes of the Statute of Fraud — Email Authentication

Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP v. Malfetti, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167150 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2018): Plaintiff Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP ("Meltzer Lippe") brought this action in state court against defendant James Malfetti, doing business as …
Continue Reading
Previous77787980818283Next

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