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

Internet Evidence — 2-Step Process: Authentication & Admissibility — Requisite Authentication — Judicial Notice of Filings with Gov’t for Fact of Publication, Not Truth

Aaron & Andrew, Inc. v. Sears Holdings Mgmt. Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49716 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018): I. INTRODUCTION On February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Aaron ...
Aaron & Andrew, Inc. v. Sears Holdings Mgmt. Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49716 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2018): I. INTRODUCTION On February 14, 2014, Plaintiffs Aaron & Andrew, Inc. and Aaron Design, Inc. (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed a…
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence Admitted on SJ under 807 — Search Results from Parties’ Websites and Amazon Like to Be Trustworthy Because of Sellers’ Interest in Accurately Representing Products — 12(f) Motions to Strike Disfavored as Way to Avoid Page Limits

Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48806 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2018): Plaintiff Uncommon, LLC sued Defendant Spigen, Inc. for using the trademarked term "Capsule" in the names of its cell phone cases, the same product that Plaintiff sells under the Capsule mark. Plaintiff brings claims for trademark infringement an ...
Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48806 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 26, 2018): Plaintiff Uncommon, LLC sued Defendant Spigen, Inc. for using the trademarked term "Capsule" in the names of its cell phone cases, the same product that Plaintiff…
Continue Reading

RICO Predicate Acts: Does the Wire Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1343) Apply Extraterritorially? — Circuit Split

Goltv, Inc. v. Fox Sports Latin Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29836 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018): THIS CAUSE came before the Court at a December 15, 2017 hearing [ECF No. 288] on De ...
Goltv, Inc. v. Fox Sports Latin Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29836 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2018): THIS CAUSE came before the Court at a December 15, 2017 hearing [ECF No. 288] on Defendants, Fox Sports Latin America, Ltd.…
Continue Reading

Crime-Fraud Exception Can Overcome Work Product Protection Where Only Lawyer/Law Firm Engaged in the Misconduct, and Clients Did Not — Balancing Test Applied — No Claims of Attorney-Client Privilege at Issue

Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7318 (11th Cir. Mar. 23, 2018): Drummond, Inc., sued Conrad & Scherer, LLP ("C&S"), a law firm, and its partner, Terrence Collingsworth, ...
Drummond Co. v. Conrad & Scherer, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7318 (11th Cir. Mar. 23, 2018): Drummond, Inc., sued Conrad & Scherer, LLP ("C&S"), a law firm, and its partner, Terrence Collingsworth, for defamation. In this appeal, C&S…
Continue Reading

Facebook Authentication — Pennsylvania Adopts Circumstantial Approach — Mere Fact Page Bears Name, Hometown & High School Insufficient to Link It to Alleged Account Holder Absent Contextual Clues Or Evidence S/he Created Account/Sent Messages

Commonwealth v. Mangel, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225, 2018 PA Super 57 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2018): The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order denying its Motion in Li ...
Commonwealth v. Mangel, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225, 2018 PA Super 57 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 15, 2018): The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order denying its Motion in Limine to introduce Facebook posts and messages allegedly authored …
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility: Emails of Party Are 801(d)(2)(A) Admissions, and Incoming Emails Are Admissible for Effect on the Listener/Reader — Resume/CV Is Hearsay, But May Be Used to Refresh Recollection under 612

Hosse v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ., LEXIS 44573, 2018 WL 1382539 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2018) (Aspen, D.J.): The jury trial is scheduled to begin in this case on March 27, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. A fin ...
Hosse v. Sumner Cty. Bd. of Educ., LEXIS 44573, 2018 WL 1382539 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 19, 2018) (Aspen, D.J.): The jury trial is scheduled to begin in this case on March 27, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. A final pretrial…
Continue Reading

YouTube Admissibility: Two Short Videos of Defendant Singing Violent Gang Rap Songs Relevant to Motive and Not Unduly Prejudicial

People v. Espinoza, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1825 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2018): I. Introduction A jury convicted defendant Luis Espinoza of first degree murder (Pen. ...
People v. Espinoza, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1825 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2018): I. Introduction A jury convicted defendant Luis Espinoza of first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a))[1] and found that, in the commission…
Continue Reading

Text Authentication — Messages from Number Recipient Associates with Sender, Contents Known Only to the Two of Them Is Sufficient — “The Possibility of An Alteration or Misuse by Another Generally Goes to Weight, Not Admissibility” (Good Quote)

State v. James, 2018 Neb. App. LEXIS 36, 2018 WL 1074879 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018): I. INTRODUCTION After a bench trial, Ja'mario James was convicted of strangulation and terroristic threats. He was also found to be a habitual criminal pursuant to
State v. James, 2018 Neb. App. LEXIS 36, 2018 WL 1074879 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2018): I. INTRODUCTION After a bench trial, Ja'mario James was convicted of strangulation and terroristic threats. He was also found to be a habitual…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: SLUSA Did Not Strip State Courts of Jurisdiction over 1933 Act Class Actions, Nor Did It Make Them Removable

Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Emples. Ret. Fund, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1912 (Mar. 20, 2018): This case presents two questions about the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 112 Stat. 3227. First, did SLUSA strip state courts of jurisdiction over class actions alleging violations of only the Securities Act of 1933 ...
Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cty. Emples. Ret. Fund, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1912 (Mar. 20, 2018): This case presents two questions about the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), 112 Stat. 3227. First, did SLUSA strip state courts of …
Continue Reading

Rule 37: Court May Order Party to Produce Non-Party Witness (Here, an Expert But Also Any Other Witness under the Party’s Control) & Impose Rule 37 Sanctions for Disobedience — Rule 45 Sanctions against Subpoenaed Witness Are Not Exclusive

Sali v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2018): The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the district court. But when required d ...
Sali v. Corona Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768 (9th Cir. Mar. 19, 2018): The discovery process in theory should be cooperative and largely unsupervised by the district court. But when required disclosures aren't made or cooperation…
Continue Reading
Previous979899100101102103Next

Recent Posts

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

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

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