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 41(d) Authorizes Court to Award “Costs” to Defendant If Plaintiff Has Previously Dismissed Same Claim against Same Defendant — Does That Include Attorney’s Fees? — Circuit Split

Ali v. Chex Sys., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130966 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017): This action was removed from Fresno County Superior Court on June 23, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 30, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, as well as a motion for costs and to stay the matter pursuant to
Ali v. Chex Sys., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130966 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2017): This action was removed from Fresno County Superior Court on June 23, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 30, 2017, defendant filed a motion to dismiss,…
Continue Reading

RICO — Without More, Improperly Brought Litigation ≠ Extortion & Incorrect Litigation Positions ≠ Mail/Wire Fraud

Sasmor v. Meisels, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17361 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2017): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on September 30, 2016, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Jon Sasmor, proceeding pro se< ...
Sasmor v. Meisels, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17361 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2017): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment entered on September 30, 2016, is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff Jon Sasmor,…
Continue Reading

Fraudulent Joinder (or Misjoinder) — If the Case Commences in State Court, Is the Propriety of Joinder Determined under the State or Federal Joinder Standard? — Case Law Split

Two Cases: 1.  Tampa Elec. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144524 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017):   This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff Tampa Electric Company's ("TECO") Motion to Remand, filed on July 28, 2017 (Doc. # 10), Def ...
Two Cases: 1.  Tampa Elec. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144524 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017):   This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff Tampa Electric Company's ("TECO") Motion to Remand, filed…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions for Refusal to Dismiss Meritless Case with Prejudice — No New Right to 41(a)(1) Dismissal of Right by Amending or after Removal — 41(a)(2) Dismissal Factors

Baiul v. NBC Sports, 2017 WL 3911576 (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2017): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-appellants Oksana Baiul and her company, Oksana, Ltd. (collectively, “Baiul”) ...
Baiul v. NBC Sports, 2017 WL 3911576 (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2017): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-appellants Oksana Baiul and her company, Oksana,…
Continue Reading

Voicemail Admissibility: Absent Applicable Exception or Exemption, Content of Voicemail Is Hearsay

State v. Acampora, 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 357 (Conn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2017): The defendant, Joseph C. Acampora, Jr., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault of a disabled person in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-61a and one count of disorderly conduct in v ...
State v. Acampora, 2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 357 (Conn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2017): The defendant, Joseph C. Acampora, Jr., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault of a disabled person…
Continue Reading

Motions for Reconsideration — By Definition, Evidence Retrieved from the Wayback Machine That Predates Trial Can’t Be “Newly Discovered” after Trial

Enslin v. Coca-Cola Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139525 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2017): I. Introduction Shane Enslin claims that he was the victim of identity theft, and he blames it on a theft of laptop computers from his former employer, Coca-Cola,1 which were ...
Enslin v. Coca-Cola Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139525 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2017): I. Introduction Shane Enslin claims that he was the victim of identity theft, and he blames it on a theft of laptop computers from his former…
Continue Reading

RICO Injury — Exposure to Future, Unthreatened Claims as a Result of Re-selling Fraudulent Product Is Speculative, Doesn’t State RICO Loss, But Cost of Retroactive Insurance Policy to Cover Claims Might

Ratajczak v. Beazley Solutions Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16782 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017): Between 2006 and 2012 Packerland Whey Products, Inc., deceived at least one of its customers about the protein content of a product called Whey [*3]  Protein Concentrate. Whey, the watery part of milk that remains after the remo ...
Ratajczak v. Beazley Solutions Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16782 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017): Between 2006 and 2012 Packerland Whey Products, Inc., deceived at least one of its customers about the protein content of a product called Whey [*3]…
Continue Reading

§ 1782 Authorizes Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceeding in Which Applicant Is Not Seeking a Damages But May Submit Evidence — Discovery May Be Used in Other Foreign Proceedings Once Allowed, Unless Court Restricts Use

In re Accent Delight Int’l Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16380 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2017): Intervenors-Appellants Yves Bouvier and MEI Invest Ltd. (collectively, "Bouvier") appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.) granting the application of Petitioners- ...
In re Accent Delight Int’l Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16380 (2d Cir. Aug. 28, 2017): Intervenors-Appellants Yves Bouvier and MEI Invest Ltd. (collectively, "Bouvier") appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of…
Continue Reading

Email/Text Admissibility — Hearsay: In Trademark Cases, A Party May Introduce Evidence of Extrajudicial Statements Made to That Party to Show Actual Confusion

Ishow.com, Inc. v. Lennar Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109659 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2017): This matter comes before the Court on defendants' corrected "Motions in Limine." Dkt. # 82-1. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows: (7) Evidenc ...
Ishow.com, Inc. v. Lennar Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109659 (W.D. Wash. July 14, 2017): This matter comes before the Court on defendants' corrected "Motions in Limine." Dkt. # 82-1. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Sanctions — Dismissal: Factors (10th Cir.) — While Factors Usually Needn’t Be Considered when Dismissal Is without Prejudice, They Must If the Statute of Limitations Has Run & It Effectively Terminates the Case

Villecco v. Grand Teton Lodge Co., 2017 WL 3726983 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2017): Michael Villecco, appearing pro se,1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination claim for failure to prosecute his claim, and from the subsequent denial of his motion for ...
Villecco v. Grand Teton Lodge Co., 2017 WL 3726983 (10th Cir. Aug. 30, 2017): Michael Villecco, appearing pro se,1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his employment discrimination claim for failure to prosecute his claim, and from the subsequent…
Continue Reading
Previous117118119120121122123Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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