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: Payment for Unnecessary Medical Treatment Constitutes Injury to Business or Property Even Though Personal Injuries and Pecuniary Losses Flowing from Them Do Not — CAFA: Federal Question Jurisdiction Trumps Local Controversy Exception

Blevins v. Aksut, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3689 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017): This case arises out of Defendant Doctor Seydi V. Aksut's alleged performance of unnecessary heart procedures. Two issues are on appeal. First, we must decide whether the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") local-controversy provision, ...
Blevins v. Aksut, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3689 (11th Cir. Mar. 1, 2017): This case arises out of Defendant Doctor Seydi V. Aksut's alleged performance of unnecessary heart procedures. Two issues are on appeal. First, we must decide whether the …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions: “Because the Rule Is Not Intended to Chill an Attorney’s Enthusiasm … Sanctions Are Reserved for the Exceptional Case” (Good Quotes) — Frivolous = Baseless + No Inquiry

Lima v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6752 (9th Cir. April 19, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. In these cases, Defendants-Appellants the Law Office of David B. Rosen and David B. Rosen, Esq. ...
Lima v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6752 (9th Cir. April 19, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. In these cases,…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Notice Taken of Wayback Machine Results over Objection

UL LLC v. Space Chariot, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60585 (C.D. Cal. April 20, 2017): The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See
UL LLC v. Space Chariot, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60585 (C.D. Cal. April 20, 2017): The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly,…
Continue Reading

Sua Sponte Dismissal without Prejudice Failure to File RICO Case Statement, Even If Erroneous, Not Reversible If Plaintiff Had Time to Refile within SOL — Inherent Power Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute Reviewed with an Eye on Rule 41(b) Standards

Moskovits v Aldridge Pite, LLP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1199 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2017): Pro se plaintiff Alexander Moskovits filed a putative class-action suit in the Southern District of Florida against twenty-three defendants, alleging that defendants engaged in a widespread conspiracy to fraudulently ...
Moskovits v Aldridge Pite, LLP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1199 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2017): Pro se plaintiff Alexander Moskovits filed a putative class-action suit in the Southern District of Florida against twenty-three defendants, alleging that defendants engaged in a …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Frivolousness Alone Not Enough — Bad Faith Required, May Be Inferred — Disobedience to Court Is Key — Nightmare of Diversity Jurisdiction with LLCs (Good Quotes)

Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4918 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017): This case demonstrates the difficulty of applying established diversity jurisdiction principles to 21st-century business organizations. When determining citizenship of the parties for diversity jurisdiction purposes, a limited ...
Purchasing Power, LLC v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4918 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017): This case demonstrates the difficulty of applying established diversity jurisdiction principles to 21st-century business organizations. When determining citizenship of the parties for diversity …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Inherent Power Sanctions — Only Attorney’s Fees and Costs Incurred As a Result of the Misconduct Are Awardable — But-For Test — Substantial Discretion to Do “Rough Justice”

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2613 (U.S. April 18, 2017): In this case, we consider a federal court's inherent authority to sanction a litigant for bad-faith conduct by ordering it to pay the other side's legal fees. We hold that such an order is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred s ...
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2613 (U.S. April 18, 2017): In this case, we consider a federal court's inherent authority to sanction a litigant for bad-faith conduct by ordering it to pay the other side's …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: How Mandatory Is the Mandate That the Court Must Order a Party Who Violates a Discovery Order to Pay the Fees and Expenses Incurred by the Other Side? — Sixth Circuit Splits on Issue

Lim v. Terumo Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 23233 (6th Cir. April 2, 2015): Chang Lim, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his action raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000-2000e-17 ("Title VII"), and variou ...
Lim v. Terumo Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 23233 (6th Cir. April 2, 2015): Chang Lim, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his action raising claims under Title VII…
Continue Reading

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence — 11th Circuit Factors (Unchanged Post-37(e)), Available Sanctions — State Law Guidance — Ignoring Opponent’s Request to Inspect + Failing to Preserve on While Notice of Claim = Bad Faith

Oil Equipment Co., Inc. v. Modern Welding Co., Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17632 (11th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016): PER CURIAM: This is a products-liability case about an allegedly defective underground storage tank that began to leak. Plaintiff-Appellant Oil Equipment Company Inc. ("OEC") purchased the tank from the manufact ...
Oil Equipment Co., Inc. v. Modern Welding Co., Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17632 (11th Cir. Sept. 29, 2016): PER CURIAM: This is a products-liability case about an allegedly defective underground storage tank that began to leak. Plaintiff-Appellant Oil Equipment…
Continue Reading

What Is Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Bar within FRAP 46(b)(1)(B)? — Standards — Factors Relevant to Deciding Whether Sanctions Apt — Range of Sanctions (Discipline) Available — The Vice of Misrepresentation to the Court

Greene v. Exec. Coach & Carriage, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 23218 (9th Cir. July 22, 2015): JUDGES: Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner. OPINION ORDER On February 12, 2015, the court identified a false statement in the answering brief of Defendant-App ...
Greene v. Exec. Coach & Carriage, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 23218 (9th Cir. July 22, 2015): JUDGES: Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner. OPINION ORDER On February 12, 2015, the court identified a false statement in the answering brief of …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Require More Than Negligence, Not Bad Faith (Circuit Split) — Repeating on Rule 59 Motion Args Previously Rejected Sanctionable — Discretion Means Range of Choices — That Other Courts Decided Differenrtly Irrelevant

U.S. ex rel. Hirt v. Walgreen Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5245 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2017): PER CURIAM. After losing his qui tam lawsuit at the district court, Andrew Hirt, owner of Andy's Pharmacies, filed a Rule 59 motion to vacate or amend the judgment. Hirt failed to persuade the court, and defendant Walgree ...
U.S. ex rel. Hirt v. Walgreen Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5245 (6th Cir. Mar. 23, 2017): PER CURIAM. After losing his qui tam lawsuit at the district court, Andrew Hirt, owner of Andy's Pharmacies, filed a Rule 59 motion …
Continue Reading
Previous132133134135136137138Next

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