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 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

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
Previous136137138139140141142Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice