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

Spoliation: Burden of Proof — Movant Must Establish That Target Destroyed Evidence While on Notice That the Evidence Were Potentially Relevant to the Dispute

Harfouche v. Wehbe, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24401 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appellant Elie Harfouche appeals the district court's orders granting Haifa Wehbe's motion for sum ...
Harfouche v. Wehbe, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24401 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Appellant Elie Harfouche appeals the district court's…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court – Supplemental Jurisdiction: § 1367 Stops the Clock on State Statute of Limitations While State Law Claims Are Pending in Federal Court and for 30 Days after the Federal Claim Is Dismissed

Artis v. District of Columbia, 199 L. Ed. 2d 473 (2018): The Supplemental Jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. §1367, enables federal district courts to entertain claims not otherwise w ...
Artis v. District of Columbia, 199 L. Ed. 2d 473 (2018): The Supplemental Jurisdiction statute, 28 U. S. C. §1367, enables federal district courts to entertain claims not otherwise within their adjudicatory authority when those claims “are so related…
Continue Reading

Spoliation: $2.7 Million Compensatory Award in $20,000 Case OK, Even Though Little of Value Found, Where Discovery Reasonable — Upgrading Operating System During Lit. Hold = Intentional Spoliation — Civil Rights Fee Caselaw Inapt

Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1872 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2018):   In the course of defending against claims that it sold counterfeit products, defendant-appellant ePRO E ...
Klipsch Grp., Inc. v. ePRO E-Commerce Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1872 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 2018):   In the course of defending against claims that it sold counterfeit products, defendant-appellant ePRO E-Commerce Limited ("ePRO") engaged in persistent discovery misconduct: …
Continue Reading

All Writs Act: Does Relitigation Exception Allow Federal Courts to Enjoin State Suits Concerning Claims or Issues That Could Have Been Brought in Prior Federal Action Or Only Those Actually Litigated? Circuit Split & a Hint from the S.Ct.

Dakota Med., Inc. v. RehabCare Grp., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15972 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018): 6 There is a circuit split over whether the relitigation exception allows federal courts to enjoin state suits concerning any claims and issues that could have been brought in the prior federal litigation, or ...
Dakota Med., Inc. v. RehabCare Grp., Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15972 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018): 6 There is a circuit split over whether the relitigation exception allows federal courts to enjoin state suits concerning any claims and issues …
Continue Reading

Causation Standards under Anti-Terrorism Act Are the Same as RICO Causation Standards — Same “By Reason Of” Language

Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2445 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2018): After Lloyd "Carl" Fields, Jr., and James Damon Creach were killed while working as government contractors in Jordan in an attack for which ISIS claimed credit, Plaintiffs-Appellants sued Defendant-Appellee Twitter, Inc. (Twitter) pursuant to
Fields v. Twitter, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2445 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2018): After Lloyd "Carl" Fields, Jr., and James Damon Creach were killed while working as government contractors in Jordan in an attack for which ISIS claimed credit,…
Continue Reading

Client Generally Bound by Acts of Her Lawyer — Presumption Is Rebuttable when Lawyer undertakes Settlement or Dismissal of Client’s Claim

Gottlieb v. SEC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1889 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2018): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Phyllis Gottlieb ("Gottlieb") appeals fr ...
Gottlieb v. SEC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 1889 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2018): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Appellant Phyllis Gottlieb ("Gottlieb") appeals from…
Continue Reading

Ruling on Merits Not Prerequisite to Award of § 1927 Sanctions — Presence of Some Reasonable Allegations Doesn’t Excuse Meritless Claims — 12(b)(6) Dismissal Is a Ruling on the Merits

Lefande v. Mische-Hoeges, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2751 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 1, 2018): These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2);
Lefande v. Mische-Hoeges, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2751 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 1, 2018): These consolidated appeals were considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties.…
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Failure to Preserve All Video Evidence Requested in Overly Broad Request ≠ Bad Faith — Does 37(e) Trump Flurry Factors? — Lit. Funding Firm’s Deal with Doctors Not Barred by Collateral Source Rule

ML Healthcare Servs., LLC v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2935 (11th Cir. Feb. 7, 2018): This is a personal injury case arising from plaintiff Robin Houston's slip and fall at a Publix Supermarket operated by Defendant. Following an eight-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. Plai ...
ML Healthcare Servs., LLC v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2935 (11th Cir. Feb. 7, 2018): This is a personal injury case arising from plaintiff Robin Houston's slip and fall at a Publix Supermarket operated by Defendant.…
Continue Reading

Circumstantial Text Authentication: Texts on Phone in Def’s Possession; He Admitted to Phone No. Only 1 Digit Off No. of Phone; Email Address Tied to Phone = His Surname + Birthday; Incoming Text Uses His First Name; Phone Used to Send a Selfie of Him

State v. Brownlee, 2017 Wisc. App. LEXIS 949 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017): Willie Brownlee Jr. appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury's verdict, for one count of possession of cocaine, fifteen to forty grams, with intent to deliver, contrary to
State v. Brownlee, 2017 Wisc. App. LEXIS 949 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2017): Willie Brownlee Jr. appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury's verdict, for one count of possession of cocaine, fifteen to forty grams, with …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Summary Judgment Declarations from Witnesses Not Disclosed Per 26(a)(1) Properly Stricken — Mentioning Them in Interrogatory Answers Insufficient

Benjamin v. B & H Education, Inc., 2017 WL 6460087 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2017): Plaintiffs are students of cosmetology and hair design at schools in California and Nevada operated by defendant B&H Education, Inc., under the name of Marinello Schools of Beauty. Plaintiffs claim that they are employees within the meaning of the Fair Labor ...
Benjamin v. B & H Education, Inc., 2017 WL 6460087 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 2017): Plaintiffs are students of cosmetology and hair design at schools in California and Nevada operated by defendant B&H Education, Inc., under the name of Marinello…
Continue Reading
Previous102103104105106107108Next

Recent Posts

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