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

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

Emails Produced by Party Opponent Are Presumptively Authentic — Under 801(d)(2) (Admissions of Party Opponent), They Are Not Hearsay, Either

Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Servs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135765 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2016): Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 900), filed by Defendants AMG Capital Management, LLC ("AMG Capital"); Level 5 Motorsports, LLC ("Level 5"); Black Creek Capital Corporation (" ...
Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Servs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135765 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2016): Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 900), filed by Defendants AMG Capital Management, LLC ("AMG Capital"); Level…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — No Bad Faith Required in Sixth Circuit (Circuit Split) — Lawyer Need Only Objectively Fall Short of The Obligations Owed to the Court, Causing Additional Expense to Adversary

Knopf v. Elite Moving Sys., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1524 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2017): Attorney Stuart Sandweiss represented Meyer Knopf in a suit against Elite Moving Systems after Knopf's belongings were damaged during a move from California to Michigan in 2010. The parties reached a mediated settlement on December 1, 2014 but were una ...
Knopf v. Elite Moving Sys., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1524 (6th Cir. Jan. 25, 2017): Attorney Stuart Sandweiss represented Meyer Knopf in a suit against Elite Moving Systems after Knopf's belongings were damaged during a move from California to Michigan…
Continue Reading

State Res Judicata Rules Determine Whether RICO Action Precluded by Prior State Court Judgment on Same Claims — Noerr-Pennington Protects Lawyers Absent Factual Allegations Establishing Sham Exception

Alers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21117 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2016): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Alejandro Alers, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of th ...
Alers v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21117 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 2016): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Alejandro Alers, Sr. appeals…
Continue Reading

RICO: If Pattern Exists, Only One Predicate Act Need Cause Injury — Paying Assistant to Compile Records Responding to Fraudulent Claim = Injury — Multiple (Generic) RICO Issues Establish Commonality for Class Certification Purposes

Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2017): Plaintiffs-Appellees are small businesses and small business owners who leased "point of sale" credit and debit card processing equipment. They allege that Defendants-Appellants (the "Leasing Defendants") defrauded them in a scheme that in ...
Just Film, Inc. v. Buono, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 2164 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2017): Plaintiffs-Appellees are small businesses and small business owners who leased "point of sale" credit and debit card processing equipment. They allege that Defendants-Appellants (the "Leasing…
Continue Reading
Previous136137138139140141142Next

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