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

(1) Order to Show Cause Why FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Issue Against Recidivist Filer of Frivolous Claims for Filing Brief Consisting Mostly of Unsubstantiated Accusations; (2) Vexatious Litigant Injunction to Issue If Any Monetary Penalty Not Paid Promptly

Henry v. Hall, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8193 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024): ORDER Michael Henry sued several Illinois circuit and appellate judges, and the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, alleging that their actio ...
Henry v. Hall, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 8193 (7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2024): ORDER Michael Henry sued several Illinois circuit and appellate judges, and the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, alleging that their actions in an ongoing state …
Continue Reading

(1) Post-Judgment Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Violates Safe Harbor, Precluding Any Rule 11 Award — (2) Judicial Speculation That Target Would Not Have Withdrawn the Offending Paper Even If Given the Opportunity Insufficient: “[A]ssumptions Do Not Excuse Compliance with the Text of Rule 11” (Good Quote) — (3) Citing Potential Rule 11 Violations in Summary Judgment Papers Insufficient — Rule 11 Motion Required: “Thus, Informal Notice Is Only A ‘Professional Courtesy’ … Not The Official Notice That Starts The 21-Day Safe Harbor Period” (Good Quote) — (4) Court Could Have Imposed Sanctions Sua Sponte under Rule 11(c)(3), § 1927 or Inherent Power Sanctions

Caranchini v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7890 (8th Cir. April 3, 2024): Attorney Gregory Leyh and his law firm were sanctioned by the district court pursuant to
Caranchini v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 7890 (8th Cir. April 3, 2024): Attorney Gregory Leyh and his law firm were sanctioned by the district court pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.03 and Federal Rule of Civil …
Continue Reading

(1) Sua Sponte Sanctions (3d Cir.): Reasonableness, Not Bad Faith, Is The Standard — Implicitly Rejecting the 2d Cir.’s Akin-to-Contempt Standard — (2) Sua Sponte Sanctions Require Extra Care Because of The Absence of the 21-Day Safe Harbor — (3) Appealability — Even Absent a Reprimand Or Other Sanction, A Court’s Finding of Sanctionable Conduct Injures A Lawyer’s Reputation Sufficiently to Confer Standing to Appeal — (4) Even Though Intent Is Not Required to Violate Rule 11, It Is Relevant to the Decision Whether to Sanction And, If So, What Sanction to Impose — (5) Rule 11 Imposes a Duty of Candor And Is Violated by Not Only by Misrepresentations But Also by Misleading Statements, Half-Truths, Inconsistencies, Mischaracterizations, Exaggerations, Omissions, Evasions And Failures to Correct Known Misimpressions — (6) Candor Is Critical in Ex Parte and Non-Adversarial Proceedings Where Both Sides Agree — (7) “Mild Sanctions” — Requiring an Apology in Writing And Ordering Better Conduct in Similar Cases in the Future

Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney's Off., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642, 95 F ...
Wharton v. Superintendent Graterford SCI Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Off., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5642, 95 F.4th 140 (3d Cir. 2024): Courts rely on lawyers’ honesty; lawyers may not mislead them. But the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office did just that.…
Continue Reading

Expert (702) vs. Lay Opinion (701) Testimony: “The Line Between Expert And Lay Testimony Is Not Always Sharp” (Good Quote) — Owner of New Business Not Allowed to Offer Lay Opinion As to Lost Future Profits Where Basis Extended Beyond Knowledge He Possessed Due to His Position in the Company (His Own Perception) And Beyond The Reasoning Process of an Average Person in Everyday Life — Sandbagging with Late Opinion: “The Proper Function Of Rebuttal Evidence Is To Contradict, Impeach Or Defuse The Impact Of The Evidence Offered By An Adverse Party” (Good Quote) — Where Opinion Being Rebutted Is Not Admitted, There Is Nothing to Rebut —“ The Duty To Supplement Cannot Be Transformed Into A Right To Ambush Just Before Trial” (Good Quote)

Chi. Joe's Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357, 94 F.4th 588 (7th Cir. 2024 ...
Chi. Joe’s Tea Room, LLC v. Vill. of Broadview, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4357, 94 F.4th 588 (7th Cir. 2024): This appeal presents a host of issues arising from an effort to prove lost profits for a business that…
Continue Reading

Right to File Motions, Pleadings, Appeals: Absent Extraordinary Circumstances, Like a History of Litigation Abuse Or Failure to Comply with Sanctions, a Court Has No Power to Prevent a Party from Filing Pleadings, Motions or Appeals — Construing Pre-Motion Letters As Motions OK for Non-Dispositive Motions Or Denial of Dispositive Motions — It Is Also OK If Dispositive Motion Is Predominantly Legal And Complaint Has Substantial Deficiencies — Granting Summary Judgment on Reconsideration of Prior Denial Based on Premotion Letters Only Reversed for Lack of Due Process

Kowalchuck v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4533 94 F.4th 210 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2024): In this case, plaintiff-appellant John Kowalchuck sued his former employer, defendant-appellee Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (“FELA”),
Kowalchuck v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4533 94 F.4th 210 (2d Cir. Feb. 27, 2024): In this case, plaintiff-appellant John Kowalchuck sued his former employer, defendant-appellee Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”), under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act …
Continue Reading

Appeals: Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) Designating Judgment AND Any Judgment from Pending Post-Trial Motion Becomes Effective When Post-Trial Motion (e.g., Sanctions, Reconsideration) Is Decided BUT Is Effective Only As to the Designated Judgment — To Confer Appellate Jurisdiction Over Decision on Pending Motion. New Or Amended NOA Appealing from That Decision Is Necessary — Sometimes Other Documents Can Confer Appellate Jurisdiction (e.g., Docketing Statement) If Intent to Appeal Is Clear

Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6395 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024): *1 ...
Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6395 (4th Cir. Mar. 18, 2024): *1 This case originates from a lending relationship between Plaintiffs—Jeffrey Frye and his companies The Wall Guy, Inc., and JR Contractors—and First State Bank (“the…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 and FRAP 46(c) Sanctions for Misrepresenting to Court of Appeals When Party Learned of the “New Evidence” Argued under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) — When a Lawyer Raises a Frivolous Argument with the District Court, and That Issue Is Appealed and Re-Argued to the Court of Appeals by Someone Else, The Original Lawyer Can Be Sanctioned under § 1927 For Multiplying Proceedings — Recklessly Raising Frivolous Argument Satisfies Bad Faith Requirement for § 1927 in 9th Circuit — § 1927 Does Not Apply to Law Firms — § 1927 Applies to All Responsible Lawyers, Not Just Those Appearing of Record Or Licensed to Practice Before Sanctioning Court — Reviewing and Approving Filings by General Counsel or Supervising Attorney Suffices — FRAP 46(c): Violating Rules of Professional Ethics = “Conduct Unbecoming of the Court’s Bar” Violative of FRAP 46(c) — Financial Sanctions and Notifications to State Bars and District Courts

Caputo ex rel. United States of Am. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6126 (9th Cir ...
Caputo ex rel. United States of Am. v. Tungsten Heavy Powder, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6126 (9th Cir. Mar. 14, 2024): ORDER Petitioners Global Tungsten & Powders Corp. (GTP) and Gregory Caputo have filed a motion for sanctions against …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions: Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over The Merits of a Case, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver (Intentional Relinquishment of Known Right) — Two Judge Concurrence Finds Strong Textual Argument There Is No Statutory Basis for the Existence of the Virgin Islands Bankruptcy Court

Prosser v Gerber (In re Prosser), 2024 WL 1230148 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (unpublished):   Sanctions:  Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver (Intentional Relinquishment of Known Right) — Two Judge Concurrence Finds Strong Textual Argument There Is No ...
Prosser v Gerber (In re Prosser), 2024 WL 1230148 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2024) (unpublished):   Sanctions:  Even If Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction, It Retains Jurisdiction to Impose Sanctions — Forfeiture (Failure to Assert Right) vs. Waiver (Intentional Relinquishment …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Sixth Circuit Requires That A Party Seeking FRAP 38 Sanctions Must Show Both That An Appeal Lacks Merit And That The Appellant Took The Appeal For An Improper Purpose

Lea v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5012 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished): Corey Lea has filed over a dozen lawsuits challenging a bank's foreclosure of his Kentucky farmland. Courts have uniformly dismissed these suits. ...
Lea v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 5012 (6th Cir. Feb. 28, 2024) (unpublished): Corey Lea has filed over a dozen lawsuits challenging a bank’s foreclosure of his Kentucky farmland. Courts have uniformly dismissed these suits. But …
Continue Reading
Previous9101112131415Next

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

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