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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Federal Court May Take Judicial Notice of Another Court’s Website As Well As Public Records and Government Documents Available from Reliable Sources on the Internet

Flores v. Smith, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67059 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2017): *** Petitioner pled guilty [*2]  to forgery in the Lenawee Circuit Court in 2013. He was sentenced as indicated above on October 4, 2013. According to the allegations in the petition, and as confirmed by the Michigan One Court of Justice website, Petitione ...
Flores v. Smith, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67059 (E.D. Mich. May 3, 2017): *** Petitioner pled guilty [*2]  to forgery in the Lenawee Circuit Court in 2013. He was sentenced as indicated above on October 4, 2013. According to the…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions: Where One of Two Jointly Sanctioned Pays Full Award, Appeal by Other Is Moot (Query Why Award as to Appellant Wasn’t Vacated on Due Process Grounds Since Appellant Lost Right to Be Heard)

Laney v. Slaten, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7692 (11th Cir. May 1, 2017): PER CURIAM: Victoria Laney appeals the district court's dismissal of her claims against Jill Rygh,1 Southwest Property Management of Central Florida, Robert McKey, and The Hammocks Homeowner's Association of Orange County, Inc. (collectively ...
Laney v. Slaten, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7692 (11th Cir. May 1, 2017): PER CURIAM: Victoria Laney appeals the district court's dismissal of her claims against Jill Rygh,1 Southwest Property Management of Central Florida, Robert McKey, and The Hammocks Homeowner's…
Continue Reading

Securities — Investment Contract Factors — Investor’s Duties Must Be Nominal — RICO — Conspiracy Falls with Substantive Claim (9(b)) — No Error in Failing to Grant Leave to Amend Sua Sponte Except in Civil Rights Case

NE Revenue Servs., Inc. v. Maps Indeed, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6262 (3d Cir. April 12, 2017): *   This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. The plaintiff, Northeast Revenue Services LLC ("Northeast Revenue"), brought this suit allegin ...
NE Revenue Servs., Inc. v. Maps Indeed, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6262 (3d Cir. April 12, 2017): *   This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. The…
Continue Reading

Experts: Under Daubert, Court Evaluates Methodology, Not Conclusion — Reliance on Other Expert — Substantial Justification/Harmless Error Factors — Where Supplemental Opinion Decreases Damages, Opponent Not Impermissibly Blindsided

Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6880 (4th Cir. April 20, 2017) (majority opinion): In this appeal, we consider breach of contract claims brought by Fleur Bresler (Fleur) and her son, Sidney Bresler (Sidney) (collectively, the plaintiffs), as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Charles S. Bresler ...
Bresler v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6880 (4th Cir. April 20, 2017) (majority opinion): In this appeal, we consider breach of contract claims brought by Fleur Bresler (Fleur) and her son, Sidney Bresler (Sidney) (collectively, the plaintiffs), …
Continue Reading

Hearsay: Email Proposing to “Get Aggressive” with Counterparty Is a Non-Hearsay Proposal to Perform an Act — Email from Counsel Identifying Strength of Opponent’s Position Claim Offered for Notice, Not Truth

O&M Llc v. Aldridge Pite Llp, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2982 (Cal. Ct. App. April 28, 2017): Aldridge Pite LLP, successor by merger to Pite Duncan, LLP and Diane Elizabeth Bond (collectively Pite) appeal from an order denying their special motion to strike1
O&M Llc v. Aldridge Pite Llp, 2017 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2982 (Cal. Ct. App. April 28, 2017): Aldridge Pite LLP, successor by merger to Pite Duncan, LLP and Diane Elizabeth Bond (collectively Pite) appeal from an order denying their …
Continue Reading

Facebook Admissibility — Posts Determined to Be Present Sense Impressions (PSIs) from Their Text — Failure to Particularize Hearsay Objection to Parts of Those Posts That Were Not PSIs Forfeits Objection

Wilkinson v. State , 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3808 (Tex. Ct. App. April 27, 2017): Appellant Jeffrey Lynn Wilkinson appeals from his misdemeanor conviction for assault involving family violence. After a jury foun ...
Wilkinson v. State , 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 3808 (Tex. Ct. App. April 27, 2017): Appellant Jeffrey Lynn Wilkinson appeals from his misdemeanor conviction for assault involving family violence. After a jury found appellant guilty, the trial court assessed his…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions: Once It Is Obvious a Position Lacks Factual or Legal Basis, Continued Assertion of It Exposes Counsel to § 1927 Sanctions (Good Quote)

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64514 (N.D. Ind. April 28, 2017): Hartford Iron moved that the court reconsider the portion of its January 4, 2017 order [Doc. No. 609] dismissing certain counterclaims against Valley Forge insofar as they related to Valley Forge's alleged ongoing conflict of in ...
Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Hartford Iron & Metal, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64514 (N.D. Ind. April 28, 2017): Hartford Iron moved that the court reconsider the portion of its January 4, 2017 order [Doc. No. 609] dismissing certain counterclaims …
Continue Reading

Absent Compelling Reasons, Circuit Will Not Create Circuit Split on State Law Issue by Disagreeing with Circuit That Encompasses That State

Halajian v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7497 (9th Cir. April 27, 2017): *This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by < ...
Halajian v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7497 (9th Cir. April 27, 2017): *This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. In 2005, appellant…
Continue Reading

Judicial Recusal — 1974 Amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 455 Requires That Judge Must Have Participated As Counsel in a Case, Not Simply Have Been Of Counsel — And Case Is Strictly Construed

United States v Norwood, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6508 (8th Cir. April 17, 2017): PER CURIAM. Marion Anthony Norwood appeals the judgment of the district court1 entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349. Norwood's counsel filed a brief pu ...
United States v Norwood, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6508 (8th Cir. April 17, 2017): PER CURIAM. Marion Anthony Norwood appeals the judgment of the district court1 entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit bank fraud. See…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Failure to Comply with Court-Ordered Deadline to File Amended Complaint — No Bad Faith Evident or Required — Appeals: Matters Not Specifically Argued in Opening Brief Not Considered

Zochlinski v. Univ. of Cal., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783 (9th Cir. April 11, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Howard Alan Zochlinski appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for ...
Zochlinski v. Univ. of Cal., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6783 (9th Cir. April 11, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Howard Alan Zochlinski appeals pro…
Continue Reading
Previous131132133134135136137Next

Recent Posts

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

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

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