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

Sanctions: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute — Same Factors, and Requisite Aggravating Factors, under Inherent Power & Rule 41(b) (5th Cir.) — They Include Client’s Personal Responsibility & Inaptness of Lesser Sanctions

Gates v. Strain, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7268 (5th Cir. Mar. 22, 2018): Shane Gates was arrested by the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office in 2006. In 2007, he filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that…
Continue Reading

Service of Subpoena on Non-Party Federal Agency: If by State Court Litigant, Sovereign Immunity Applies, Litigant Must File APA Action If Agency Says No — If by Federal Litigant, No Sov. Immunity But Circuit Split As to Standard of Review

Taylor v. Gilbert, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42322 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 15, 2018) (see also our post dated March 21, 2018): ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for…
Continue Reading

RICO: Perjury, Obstruction, Evidence Tampering Are Predicates Only If in Connection with Federal Proceedings — State Prisoner Can’t Pursue §1983 Action If Win Would Imply Invalidity of Conviction (Heck Bar)

Pro se Plaintiff John Garrett Smith, an inmate at Stafford Creek Corrections Center in Washington, filed this action against Defendant Sandra Aldridge claiming violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Computer…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: FRCP 42(a): Judgment Entered in Each of Consolidated Cases Is Immediately Appealable — Neither Congress Nor Advisory Committee Alters “the Fundamental Details of an Existing Scheme with Vague Terms and Subtle Devices” (Good Quote)

Hall v. Hall, 138 S.Ct. 1118 (2018): Three Terms ago, we held [**6]  that one of multiple cases consolidated for multidistrict litigation under 28 U. S. C. §1407 is immediately appealable upon an order disposing of that case, regardless of…
Continue Reading

Neither Rule 11 Sanctions Nor Separate Referral to Disciplinary Committee May Be Certified for Appeal under Rule 54(b) Because They Are Not Claims for Relief (1292(b) Possible; Not Collateral Order; Markwell Highly Unlikely)

Nogess v. Poydras Ctr., LLC, 2018 WL 1614216 (5th Cir. Apr. 3, 2018): *1 This is an appeal of an order of sanctions under Rule 11 and a referral of attorney conduct to a lawyers’ disciplinary committee with findings of …
Continue Reading

Forum Selection Clauses: In Diversity Case, Federal Law Determines Enforceability, But Forum State’s Choice of Law Rules Determine Which State’s Substantive Law Governs Interpretation

Blue Racer Midstream, LLC v. Kelchner, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27911, 2018 WL 993781 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2018): Before the Court is Defendant Kelchner, Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. No. 27). After carefully considering the motion,…
Continue Reading

Privilege/Work Product — Public Relations Firm: Absent Privilege Log or In Camera Review, Ruling Unappealable — Waiver by Failure to Log — Party Still Bears Burden of Proving Privilege Even If Documents Held by Third Party

Tex. Brine Co., LLC v. Occidental Chem. Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1286 (5th Cir. Jan. 19, 2018): I. Defendant Texas Brine Company, LLC (Texas Brine) operates brine wells on land owned by Co-Defendant Occidental Chemical Corporation (Oxy) in…
Continue Reading

RICO: Rimless Hub & Spoke Enterprise Not Enough, Rimmed OK — If Defendants Band Together to Commit Violations They Can’t Achieve Alone, Associated-in-Fact Enter. Stated — Rule 16(b) vs. 15(a) for Complaint Amendment

Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare & Benefit Fund v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2018 WL 1631300 (D. R.I. Mar. 31, 2018): Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 56), in…
Continue Reading
Previous96979899100101102Next

Recent Articles

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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

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