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

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (Pre-37(e)): Even If Adverse Inference Instruction Is Permissible, Court Is Not Required to Issue It — Parties Allowed to Argue Their Positions to the Jury — Whether to Instruct Depends on Motive / Degree of Fault

Garcia Miranca v. Wyatt, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Rafael Garcia Miranda and Olga Martha Garcia (collectively "Plaintiffs") appeal the district court's dec ...
Garcia Miranca v. Wyatt, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3193 (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Rafael Garcia Miranda and Olga Martha …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: While Rule 11 Requires Conduct Violating 11(b)(1), (2), (3) or(4), Violation of the Duty of Candor Is Sanctionable under Inherent Power — Counsel’s Less-Than-Clear Comments Cannot Mislead Court That Knows True Facts

Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. United States, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 202 (Ct. Fed. Claims Mar. 16, 2017): RULING REGARDING THE COURT'S DECEMBER 5, 2016 NOTICE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RCFC 11(b) WAS NOT VIOLATED This bid protest concerns a decision of the Defense Information Systems Agency ("D ...
Level 3 Commc’ns, LLC v. United States, 2017 U.S. Claims LEXIS 202 (Ct. Fed. Claims Mar. 16, 2017): RULING REGARDING THE COURT'S DECEMBER 5, 2016 NOTICE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RCFC 11(b) WAS NOT VIOLATED This bid…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Wayback Machine — If Judicial Notice Independently Taken by Court, Need to Give Parties Notice Per Rule 201(e)

DistributorsOutlet.com LLC v. Glasstree, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76248 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016): Plaintiff DistributorsOutlet.com, LLC, an online merchant, brought this action in December 2011 against Glasstree, Inc., a web hosting and design company; two Glasstree principals; and Glasstree Racing LLC (collectively, "Defendan ...
DistributorsOutlet.com LLC v. Glasstree, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76248 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016): Plaintiff DistributorsOutlet.com, LLC, an online merchant, brought this action in December 2011 against Glasstree, Inc., a web hosting and design company; two Glasstree principals; and Glasstree…
Continue Reading

Appeals — No Jurisdiction to Review Arguments That Should’ve Been, But Weren’t, Raised in Prior Direct Appeal — Untimely 2d Motion for Reconsideration Doesn’t Toll Deadline for Filing Appeal

Lora v. NHS, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19333 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2016): Yenny Lora and Mercedes Palma appeal the imposition of costs, and their attorney, Raul Jauregui, appeals the imposition of sanctions. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania imposed those costs and sanctions for abuse of the discov ...
Lora v. NHS, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19333 (3d Cir. Oct. 26, 2016): Yenny Lora and Mercedes Palma appeal the imposition of costs, and their attorney, Raul Jauregui, appeals the imposition of sanctions. The United States District Court for…
Continue Reading

Privilege/Work Product — Crime Fraud Exception Requires Proof Lawyer’s Work Product Was Used in Furtherance of Fraud — Not Enough to Show That Client Was Thinking about Defrauding and Wanted to Discuss It

In re Grand Jury Matter#3, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1498 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2017): PER CURIAM.1 1   In response to Appellant John Doe's Petition for En Banc Rehearing (which also requests panel rehearing, a presumption in any event under Third Circuit Internal Operating Procedure ...
In re Grand Jury Matter#3, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1498 (3d Cir. Jan. 27, 2017): PER CURIAM.1 1   In response to Appellant John Doe's Petition for En Banc Rehearing (which also requests panel rehearing, a presumption in any event under…
Continue Reading

RICO and Malpractice: Lawyer/Law Firm Defendants Immune from Liability under Noerr-Pennington Unless Plaintiff Can Allege Facts Showing Their Litigation Filings Were Objectively Baseless

Mir v. Greines, martin, Stein & Richland, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1439 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017): Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, and state law ...
Mir v. Greines, martin, Stein & Richland, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1439 (9th Cir. Jan. 18, 2017): Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D., appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 & Rule 41 Sanctions — Dismissal — Second Circuit Factors

Lee v. Katz, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18290 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2016): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellant Linda A. Lee, pro se, appeals from t ...
Lee v. Katz, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18290 (2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2016): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff-appellant Linda A. Lee, pro…
Continue Reading

RICO: Claim Lawyer Conspired with Client Requires More Than Awareness of Opponent’s Allegations (Good Quotes) — Mere Association with Conspirators Isn’t Agreement — Willful Blindness = Subjective Belief Plus Steps to Avoid Truth

Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1736 (7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017): If the allegations in the supplemental complaints filed in this case are to be believed, the defendant law firms and lawyers were involved in a hornet's [*2]  nest of ethical violations. The more difficult question, however, is whether ...
Domanus v. Locke Lord LLP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1736 (7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2017): If the allegations in the supplemental complaints filed in this case are to be believed, the defendant law firms and lawyers were involved in a…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Is Substantial Compliance with the Separate Motion Requirement of Rule 11(c)(2) Sufficient? — Only in the 7th Circuit and Only Sometimes (Not Here) — Circuit Split, with All Other Circuits Always Requiring an Actual Separate Motion

N. Ill. Telecom, Inc. v. Riffner, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321 (7th Cir. Mar. 10, 2017): JUDGES: Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. OPINION BY: HAMILTON This appeal pivots on the procedural requirements of Federal Rule of Ci ...
N. Ill. Telecom, Inc. v. Riffner, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4321 (7th Cir. Mar. 10, 2017): JUDGES: Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. OPINION BY: HAMILTON This appeal pivots on the procedural…
Continue Reading
Previous135136137138139140141Next

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