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

Rooker-Feldman Applies to Removed Cases, Circuit Split on Whether State Court Appeals Must Be Concluded (Here, No) — Law of the Case Dictates Same Result — Good Quote on Policy Underlying Law of the Case Doctrine

Gruppo Formstar LLC v. FM Forrest, Inc. (In re FM Forrest, Inc.), 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 2132 (S.D. Tex. July 18, 2018): I. Introduction The dispute at bar is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for which there…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions: No Right to Warning You Disobey Orders at Your Peril — May Infer Bad Faith from Frivolousness — “Legal Theory May Be Frivolous Even If We Never Said So Before” (Good Quote) — Inherent Power = Lesser Equivalent of Contempt

Huebner v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19954 (2d Cir. July 19, 2018):  Plaintiff-Appellant Levi Huebner ("Huebner") is an attorney who has litigated several cases under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, …
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal — Refusal to Respond to Court’s Ultimatum Either to Amend Complaint or Stand by Complaint = Failure to Prosecute, Is Properly Met with Dismissal

Simmonds v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17230 (9th Cir. June 25, 2018) (unpublished): Amany Simmonds appeals from the district court's order dismissing for failure to prosecute her diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have…
Continue Reading

R. 16(f) / 37(b)(2)(C) Sanctions — Default Requires Willful Misconduct But Not Wrongful Intent — Aggravating Factors Must Outweigh Desire for Merits-Based Decns — Factors (10th Cir.) — Failing to Hire Counsel & Refusing to Appear Pro Se Is Enough

Derma Pen, LLC v. 4EverYoung Limited, 2018 WL 2684216 (10th Cir. June 5, 2018): *1 This case began as a dispute over trademark infringement and counterclaims for breach of contract. The district court detailed much of the procedural history below.…
Continue Reading

Rule 15(b)(2) Amendment of Complaint by Implied Consent: “Notice of a Claim Is Defendant’s Entitlement, Not Defendant’s Burden” — Can’t “Superimpose New (Untried) Theory on Evidence Introduced for Other Purposes” (Good Quotes)

In re Fustolo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19496 (1st Cir. July 16, 2018): Following trial on The Patriot Group, LLC's ("Patriot") adversary complaint requesting denial of the discharge in bankruptcy of Steven Fustolo's ("Fustolo") debt, the bankruptcy court allowed…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Failure to Disclose Corp. Officer Would Give Expert Testimony — Fact Adversary Knew He’d Testify Doesn’t Eliminate Prejudice — Rule 13(a): Counterclaim Is Compulsory Only If It Existed When Complaint Filed

Karum Holdings LLC v. Lowe's Cos., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19269 (7th Cir. July 13, 2018): When Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's Inc.) expanded its retail home improvement stores into Mexico, Lowe's Companies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Lowe's…
Continue Reading

Appellate Jurisdiction — Even Though Motion to Reconsider Tolls Time to Appeal Until It’s Decided, It Does Not Extend Time If Made & Resolved before Judgment Entered — No Penalty or Benefit from Prematurely Filing Post-Judgment Motion

Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15367 (9th Cir. June 7, 2018): This appeal is the latest in an ongoing and bizarre dispute between Havensight Capital LLC (Havensight) and Nike, Inc. (Nike). Throughout these proceedings, …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court Can Take Judicial Notice of the Fact That Search Engines Index Web Content and Dynamically Return Relevant Search Results in Response to User-Entered Search Terms

Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104510, 2018 WL 3067985 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018): Plaintiff Brian K. Carter brings this trademark infringement action against Defendant Oath Holdings, Inc. Compl., ECF 1-1. Defendant filed a motion…
Continue Reading

§1782: Sworn Statement of Intent to File Foreign Criminal Complaint Satisfies “Foreign Tribunal” Requirement, Ability to Inject Evidence = “For Use” & Makes Movant Interested Party, As Does Circumscribed Ability to Appeal

In re Furstenberg Fin. SAS & Marc Bataillon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116391 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018): Furstenberg Finance SAS and Marc Bataillon (together, the "petitioners") have applied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, for an order for…
Continue Reading
Previous86878889909192Next

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