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

Wayback Machine: Testimony from Internet Archive Office Manager As to How It Captures & Preserves Screenshots, & Comparing Exhibits to Images Known to Be Accurate = Sufficient Authentication (2d, 3d Cirs.)

United States v. Gasperini, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17999 (2d Cir. July 2, 2018): Fabio Gasperini was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nicholas G. Garaufis, Judge) of …
Continue Reading

DOJ-Drafted Agreement Preserves Attorney-Client Privilege for Info Voluntarily Disclosed to Government Per Rule 502(e) — Privilege (Judicial Proceedings) vs. Confidentiality (Extrajudicial Disclosure) — Waiver As to Third Parties?

United States v. Under Seal (In re Grand Jury 16-3817 (16-4)), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17613 (4th Cir. June 27, 2018): Appellant corporation ("X Corp.")1 and the Government dispute whether a written agreement between them preserved X Corp.'s …
Continue Reading

Tax Returns: Discovery: Compelling Need — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions: Adverse Inference for Disregarding Court Orders; No Warning Needed — R. 37(c)(1) Exclusion: SJ Affidavits from Wit. Not ID’ed in 26(a)(1) Disclosures (Mention at Dep. Insuff.)

Zheng v. Perfect Team Corp., 2018 WL 3133942 (2d Cir. June 26, 2018): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellants Perfect Team Corporation doing business…
Continue Reading

R. 37, IHP, §1927 Sanctions: “Punishment Must Fit Crime” — Default Jmt. Factors (6th Cir.) — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion — Failure to Object to R&R Waives Review of DJ’s Adoption — Good Quotes on Playing by Rules, No New Args on Reply

Ecimos, LLC v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, 2018 WL 2459915 (6th Cir. June 1, 2018): At first glance, this case appears complicated. It languished for years in the district court as the magistrate judge and district judge held countless hearings…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal With Prejudice Requires Willful Conduct, Lesser Sanctions Inadequate — Without Prejudice Generally OK Because Party Can Re-File, Violation of Local Enough (Here, Non-Lawyer as Counsel)

Class v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12361 (11th Cir. May 9, 2018) (unpublished): Rodney Dale Class appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil lawsuit, filed on behalf …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Court Should Exclude Critical Evidence Such As Expert Testimony Only on a Showing of Willful Deception or Flagrant Disregard of a Court Order

Lamb v. Montgomery Township, 2018 WL 2094513 (3d Cir. May 7, 2018): Debora Lamb appeals from the grant of summary judgment against her on her claims that Montgomery Township, Lawrence Gregan, and Kevin Costello (the “Defendants”) violated her rights under…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal with Prejudice “Harsh” Sanction, to Be Employed Only in “Extreme Circumstances” — Failure to “Fully” Consider Efficacy of Lesser Sanctions Reversible Error — Five 9th Circuit Factors

Pima County Office of Children's Counsel v. Ariz., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7968 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 2018): MEMORANDUM* The plaintiffs allege that Arizona's Department of Child Protective Services wrongfully removed a child, A.E., from his father's home…
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Ninth Circuit Appears to Frown on Incorporating into Rule 11 Motion Arguments Made in Another Pleading in Light of the Separate-Motion Requirement of Rule 11(c)(2)

Ortego v. Lummi Island Scenic Estates Community Club, Inc., 2018 WL 3045230 (9th Cir. June 20, 2018): MEMORANDUM* *1 1. The district court properly determined that the Lummi Island Scenic Estates Community Club, Inc. (LISECC) has continuing authority to govern…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Extrajudicial (Prelitigation) Misconduct — Stealing Documents — & Using Them in Lit. = Interference with Judicial Process — Dismissal Requires Clear and Convincing Evidence — No Warning Required in These Circs.

Xyngular v. Schenkel, 2018 WL 2208472 (10th Cir. May 15, 2018): *1 Marc Schenkel appeals the dismissal by the district court of his claims against Xyngular Corporation and various third parties as a sanction for abuse of what he claims…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power & §1927—Duty of Candor: Even If No Duty to Disclose, Denials of Authenticity of Doc While Hiding Client Has Copy Are Sanctionable — “The Effort to Chop Down a Few Trees Doesn’t Mean There’s No Forest” (Good Quote)

Six v. Generations Fed. Credit Union, 891 F.3d 508 (4th Cir. 2018): This appeal arises out of the district court’s order sanctioning three attorneys and their law firms under both its inherent authority and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Finding…
Continue Reading
Previous88899091929394Next

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