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

RICO: Sub Operated by Holding Co. + Affiliate ≠ Enterprise But Unified Structure, Single Corp. Consciousness — No Evidence Subs’ Acts Outside Ordinary Course or Structure Set Up or Used to Further Racketeering

U1it4less, Inc. v. FedEx Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17990 (2d Cir. Sept. 18, 2017): U1IT4Less, Inc., d/b/a NYBikerGear ("BikerGear"), an internet retailer of motorcycle gear, accuses FedEx Corporation and its subsidiaries FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. and FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
U1it4less, Inc. v. FedEx Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17990 (2d Cir. Sept. 18, 2017): U1IT4Less, Inc., d/b/a NYBikerGear ("BikerGear"), an internet retailer of motorcycle gear, accuses FedEx Corporation and its subsidiaries FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. and FedEx Ground Package…
Continue Reading

RICO: Corp. + Outside Counsel May = Enterprise; Emotional Distress ≠ Injury, But Time Value of Settlement Does — Jurisdiction: Merits of Complaint Must Be Sufficiently Substantial to Confer Fed. Jur. — Much Harsher Test Than 12(b)

Roppo v. Travelers Comm’l Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16407 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2017): This dispute arises out of representation provided by Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. ("Travelers") to one of its insureds, Jeffery Block, following a motor vehicle accident. During the course of that personal-injury suit, T ...
Roppo v. Travelers Comm’l Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16407 (7th Cir. Aug. 28, 2017): This dispute arises out of representation provided by Travelers Commercial Insurance Co. ("Travelers") to one of its insureds, Jeffery Block, following a motor vehicle…
Continue Reading

Twitter Admissibility — Photo on Twitter Offered to Show Defendant with Vehicle Similar to One Police Allegedly Pursued Him in Not Hearsay — It is Evidence Supporting Inference Defendant Was in Vehicle

People v. Larkins, 2017 IL App (1st) 143420-U (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2017): *1 ¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress the identification. Defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel was not triggered prior to, or during defendant’s appearance in a lineup. ...
People v. Larkins, 2017 IL App (1st) 143420-U (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2017): *1 ¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress the identification. Defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel was…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Failure to Identify Witness in Initial Disclosures Harmless Where Her SJ Declaration Was Necessary Only to Authenticate Documents Whose Authenticity the Opponent Did Not Dispute

Burden v. Bar Loui Anaheim, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8600 (9th Cir. May 16, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Kay Burden appeals the district court's decision to grant summary judgment for Bar Louie Anaheim, Inc. (BL ...
Burden v. Bar Loui Anaheim, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8600 (9th Cir. May 16, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Kay Burden appeals the …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: Dismissal for Unexplained Failure to Comply with Order to Provide Supplemental Discovery Responses

Weber v. Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7831 (8th Cir. May 3, 2017): Darryl Weber appeals after the District Court,1 upon motion, dismissed his employment action with prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply with a court order to provide discovery re ...
Weber v. Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7831 (8th Cir. May 3, 2017): Darryl Weber appeals after the District Court,1 upon motion, dismissed his employment action with prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply …
Continue Reading

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
Previous117118119120121122123Next

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