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

Complex Lit Blog

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

Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25712 (11th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024):
Hornady v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25712 (11th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024): *1 In this labor dispute, the district court ordered defendant Outokumpu Stainless to produce key time and pay records. For more than two years, …
Continue Reading

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)

Crosswell v. Martinez, 2024 WL 4510449 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024): *1 In the proceedings below, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants marketed fraudulent “franchise” opportunities to foreign nationals seeking to invest in the United States to obtain residency visas. The complaint laid out claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt ...
Crosswell v. Martinez, 2024 WL 4510449 (5th Cir. Oct. 17, 2024): *1 In the proceedings below, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants marketed fraudulent “franchise” opportunities to foreign nationals seeking to invest in the United States to obtain residency visas.…
Continue Reading

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

Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 2024 WL 4471745 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Defendants-Appellants Center for Medical Progress, BioMax Procurement Services, LLC, David Daleiden, Gerardo Adrian Lopez, Albin Rhomberg, Sandra Susan Merrit ...
Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Center for Medical Progress, 2024 WL 4471745 (9th Cir. Oct. 11, 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Defendants-Appellants Center for Medical Progress, BioMax Procurement Services, LLC, David Daleiden, Gerardo Adrian Lopez, Albin Rhomberg, Sandra…
Continue Reading

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

Fenner v. General Motors, LLC, 113 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2024): OPINION *1 Plaintiffs are a group of consumers who purchased or leased a model year 2011–2016 GM Silverado or Sierra 2500 or 3500. Plaintiffs allege that they selected and ultimately purchased or leased their vehicles, at least in part, because of the ...
Fenner v. General Motors, LLC, 113 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2024): OPINION *1 Plaintiffs are a group of consumers who purchased or leased a model year 2011–2016 GM Silverado or Sierra 2500 or 3500. Plaintiffs allege that they selected and …
Continue Reading

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

Sladek v. Bank of Am., NA. A N.C. Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024) (unpub ...
Sladek v. Bank of Am., NA. A N.C. Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024) (unpublished):   *1 Pro se Plaintiff Dennis Sladek appeals from the dismissal of his civil action filed in the United States District…
Continue Reading

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

Gregory v. Montana, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24524 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2024) OPINION In this action under
Gregory v. Montana, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24524 (9th Cir. Sept. 27, 2024) OPINION In this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Carrie Gregory alleged that Defendant Tomeka Williams, a Montana Probation Officer, used excessive force on Gregory…
Continue Reading

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.”

Edmondson v. Raniere, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175983, 2024 WL 4334374 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024): This case concerns an Albany, New York-based organization that billed itself as an educational enterprise. Founded by Keith Raniere, who touted himself as a scientist, philosopher, and humanitarian, the organization — named NXIVM — offered courses ...
Edmondson v. Raniere, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175983, 2024 WL 4334374 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2024): This case concerns an Albany, New York-based organization that billed itself as an educational enterprise. Founded by Keith Raniere, who touted himself as a…
Continue Reading

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

Malek v. Feigenbaum, 2024 WL 4138389 (2d Cir. Sept. 11, 2024): Before: Walker and ...
Malek v. Feigenbaum, 2024 WL 4138389 (2d Cir. Sept. 11, 2024): Before: Walker and Menashi, Circuit Judges, and Choudhury, District Judge.* Opinion Nusrat J. Choudhury, District Judge: *1 Plaintiff-Appellant Joel J. Malek appeals from the entry of…
Continue Reading

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Stecklein v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21835 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024): How much is too much in discovery? The district court1 concluded that Experian Informatio ...
Stecklein v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21835 (8th Cir. Aug. 28, 2024): How much is too much in discovery? The district court1 concluded that Experian Information Solutions crossed the line when it demanded mostly…
Continue Reading

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

Webber v. Leson Chevrolet Co., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152383, *11 (E.D. La. Aug. 26, 2024): SECTION: “T” (5) ORDER AND REASONS On May 29, 2024, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why Plaintiff’s counsel, JP Gorham, should not be sanctioned for repeatedly violating the orders of this Co ...
Webber v. Leson Chevrolet Co., Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152383, *11 (E.D. La. Aug. 26, 2024): SECTION: “T” (5) ORDER AND REASONS On May 29, 2024, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause why Plaintiff’s counsel, JP …
Continue Reading
1234Next

Recent Posts

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