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

CAFA Local Controversy Exception: Court Is Bound by Complaint, Can’t Look to Other Evidence (Internet) — Factors for Judging If Local Defendants Can Provide “Significant Relief” or Their Conduct Is a “Significant Basis” for Suit

Christmas v. Union Pac. R.R., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11724 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017): Plaintiff-Appellant Elon Christmas ("Christmas") filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California on February 5, 2015 alleging that Defendant Union Pacific Railroad ("Union Pacific") required certain employees to wo ...
Christmas v. Union Pac. R.R., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11724 (9th Cir. June 30, 2017): Plaintiff-Appellant Elon Christmas ("Christmas") filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of California on February 5, 2015 alleging that Defendant Union Pacific Railroad…
Continue Reading

RICO—Is Any Act of Criminal Copyright Infringement a Predicate Or Only Egregious Ones?—Enterprise: Affiliated Corps: Need “Something More”? (2 Case Law Splits)—Conspiracy: Agreement Inferable—Pattern Extends Thru Era of Violations

Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130070 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017): This case stems from the purported interest of defendants Ubiquiti Network Inc., UNIL, and Ching-Han Tsai to review and evaluate for licensing plaintiff Snyopsys, Inc.'s high-value [*2]  semiconductor electronic design a ...
Synopsys, Inc. v. Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130070 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2017): This case stems from the purported interest of defendants Ubiquiti Network Inc., UNIL, and Ching-Han Tsai to review and evaluate for licensing plaintiff …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — No Abuse of Discretion to Rescind Default Judgment and Adverse Inference Instruction and Instead Impose Lesser, Monetary Sanctions

Day v. LSI Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15231 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiff Kenneth Day appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to Day's former employer, Defendant LSI C ...
Day v. LSI Corp., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15231 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiff Kenneth Day appeals from the…
Continue Reading

Blog Admissibility — Third-Party Blog Posts Reiterating Alleged Defamation = Publication; Affidavit of Counsel Sufficient to Authenticate on Summary Judgment — Posts and Comments on Posts Admissible for Effect on Listener (Damages)

Knitting Fever, Inc. v. Eisaku Noro & Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 3235108 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2102): *1 Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff The Knit With’s (“TKW”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Counterclaims of Knitting Fever, Inc. and Defendant Knitting Fever, Inc.’s (“KFI”) Motion for Summary Judg ...
Knitting Fever, Inc. v. Eisaku Noro & Co., Ltd., 2012 WL 3235108 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2102): *1 Currently pending before the Court are Plaintiff The Knit With’s (“TKW”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Counterclaims of Knitting Fever, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Blog Posts Admissible as Admissions of a Party Opponent — Founder’s Testimony about Nature of the Business Presumably Admissible as Expert Opinion under Rule 702, Not Lay Opinion under 701

Lavoholo v. Apple, Inc., 232 F.Supp.3d 513 (S.D.N.Y. Fb. 10, 2106): Lavoho, LLC, the successor in interest to Diesel eBooks, LLC (hereinafter, “Diesel”) brings this action against five book publishers, Hachette Book Group, Inc. (“Hachette”), HarperCollins Publishers, LLC (“HarperCollins”), Macmillan Publishers Inc. ...
Lavoholo v. Apple, Inc., 232 F.Supp.3d 513 (S.D.N.Y. Fb. 10, 2106): Lavoho, LLC, the successor in interest to Diesel eBooks, LLC (hereinafter, “Diesel”) brings this action against five book publishers, Hachette Book Group, Inc. (“Hachette”), HarperCollins Publishers, LLC (“HarperCollins”), Macmillan …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — If a Party Has Good Reason to Believe a Fact Is True or False But Needs Discovery, Formal or Informal, from Others to Confirm It, the Party Is Not Subject to Rule 11 Sanctions — Prompt Filing Is Encouraged

Max Oil Co., Inc. v. Range Production Co., LLC, 681 Fed.Appx. 710 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2017): Max Oil Company and Max, Rebecca, and Joe Hawkins (Hawkins Family) sued Range Production Company LLC and Range Resources-Midcontinent LLC (collectively Range), alleging Range’s oil and gas drilling operations permanently damaged thei ...
Max Oil Co., Inc. v. Range Production Co., LLC, 681 Fed.Appx. 710 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2017): Max Oil Company and Max, Rebecca, and Joe Hawkins (Hawkins Family) sued Range Production Company LLC and Range Resources-Midcontinent LLC (collectively Range), alleging …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Notice of Appeal Filed in Name of Sanctioned Party Does Not Confer Jurisdiction over Appeal by Counsel — Liberal Construction under FRAP 3 Doesn’t Excuse Complete Non-Compliance — Test Is Objective

Payne v. Univ. of S. Miss., 681 Fed.Appx. 384 (5th Cir. 2017) (limited precedent opinion): Thomas Payne filed a civil rights lawsuit against the University of Southern Mississippi (the “University”) and several University officials in their official and individual capacities, claiming that he suffered adverse employment ac ...
Payne v. Univ. of S. Miss., 681 Fed.Appx. 384 (5th Cir. 2017) (limited precedent opinion): Thomas Payne filed a civil rights lawsuit against the University of Southern Mississippi (the “University”) and several University officials in their official and individual capacities, …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — If a Party Forms a Belief Based on a Reasonable Inquiry Limited by a Prospective Adversary’s Withholding of Information, Asserts That Its Position “Will Likely Have Evidentiary Support,” Party Has Satisfied Rule 11

Amgen Inc.v. Hospira, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14747 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2017): Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denying Amgen's motion to compel discovery from Hospira, Inc. ("Hospira") in a patent infringement case governed by the Biologi ...
Amgen Inc.v. Hospira, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14747 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2017): Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denying Amgen's motion to compel discovery from Hospira, Inc.…
Continue Reading

RICO: Failure to Allege Violations of Predicate Acts Listed in § 1961(1) Dooms Claim — Judicial Recusal: Fact Judge’s Son Is Non-Partner Lawyer at Firm Before Her Doesn’t Require Recusal

Brown v. Burch, Porter & Johnson, PLLC, 2016 WL 9448027 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016):   *1 Pro se litigant Kim Brown appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) ...
Brown v. Burch, Porter & Johnson, PLLC, 2016 WL 9448027 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 2016):   *1 Pro se litigant Kim Brown appeals a district court judgment dismissing his civil action filed pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Suppression of Evidence Enough — Bad Faith Still Required for Spoliation of Tangible Evidence in Third Circuit

Davis v. Quaker Valley Sch. Dist., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9916 (3d Cir. June 5, 2017): **   This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Shinic Davis, individually and on behalf her son ("E.D."), brought a race-based discrimination and retaliati ...
Davis v. Quaker Valley Sch. Dist., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9916 (3d Cir. June 5, 2017): **   This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Shinic Davis, individually…
Continue Reading
Previous120121122123124125126Next

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