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

Arbitration — Does the FAA, Which Explicitly Provides Causes of Action to Compel & Confirm, Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction over a Cause of Action to Vacate? — Circuit Split — If So, What Is the Statute of Limitations?

Cvoro v. Carnival Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164423 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2016): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE# 8, 6/10/16). This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Federico A. Moreno ...
Cvoro v. Carnival Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164423 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 28, 2016): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (DE# 8, 6/10/16). This matter was referred to the…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Negligence Is Generally Insufficient to Justify an Inference of Spoliation in the First Circuit — Some Indication of Bad Faith Is Usually Required

United States v. Montoya, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22503 (1st Cir. Dec. 19, 2016) (Context:  Entrapment defense.  Issue:  Is spoliation a “plus factor?”  From the opinion:  “To lay the groundwork for a finding that the government did more than create an opportunity for the commission of a crime, a defendant may identify ‘plus’ factors — fact ...
United States v. Montoya, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22503 (1st Cir. Dec. 19, 2016) (Context:  Entrapment defense.  Issue:  Is spoliation a “plus factor?”  From the opinion:  “To lay the groundwork for a finding that the government did more than create…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Prelitigation Accessing Adversary’s Privileged Materials, Then Lying About It — Dismissal: 4 Factors (Sixth Circuit) — What Is “Contumacious”? —Lying vs. Inconsistent Statements

Bradley J. Delp Revocable Trust v. MSJMR 2008 Irrevocable Trust, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22430 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2016): Plaintiffs Bradley J. Delp Revocable Trust, dated January 8, 1992, as amended ("Delp Trust"), and Bradley J. Delp, individually and as trustee of the Delp [*2]  Trust ("Bradley") ( ...
Bradley J. Delp Revocable Trust v. MSJMR 2008 Irrevocable Trust, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22430 (6th Cir. Dec. 16, 2016): Plaintiffs Bradley J. Delp Revocable Trust, dated January 8, 1992, as amended ("Delp Trust"), and Bradley J. Delp, individually and…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Notice May Be Taken to Prove the Availability of Information on Internet, But Not for Its Truth

Lifeway Foods, Inc. v. Millenium Prods., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176002 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016): Courts may take judicial notice of facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 201. Publicly available government records are commonly subject to judicial notice. Von Koenig ...
Lifeway Foods, Inc. v. Millenium Prods., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176002 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016): Courts may take judicial notice of facts which are not subject to reasonable dispute. Fed. R. Evid. 201. Publicly available government records …
Continue Reading

Twitter — Tweet Authenticated by Twitter Handle, Profile Photo, Contents, Reply Letter Doctrine — N.J. Appeals Court Adopts Circumstantial Approach to Social Media Authentication

State v. Hannah, 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 156 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Dec. 20, 2016): Defendant Terri Hannah appeals her July 10, 2015 conviction for simple assault after a trial de novo in the Law Division, following her conviction in municipal court. She argues that a Twitter posting was improperly admitted into evidence, citin ...
State v. Hannah, 2016 N.J. Super. LEXIS 156 (N.J. Super. App. Div. Dec. 20, 2016): Defendant Terri Hannah appeals her July 10, 2015 conviction for simple assault after a trial de novo in the Law Division, following her conviction in …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power/§1927 Sanctions Imposed for Ethical Violation — Model Rule 4.3 Governing Contact with Unrepresented Persons — $28,000 Monetary Sanction for Deceiving Lay Person into Cooperating, Defaulting

Daniel v. Marino, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21828 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2016): Songwriter Daniel Marino appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his copyright infringement suit.1 The district court found that, because Marino had jointly created the song Club Girl, later develop ...
Daniel v. Marino, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21828 (3d Cir. Dec. 8, 2016): Songwriter Daniel Marino appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his copyright infringement suit.1 The district court found that, because…
Continue Reading

Affidavit of Plaintiff Attached to Complaint Is Not a “Written Instrument” within Rule 10(c) Deemed Part of Complaint — Must Be Legal Document Defining Rights, Like Contract, Will, Note, Security — Circuit Split

Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2015): Plaintiff-appellant Aidan A. Smith appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) dismissing his complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because ...
Smith v. Hogan, 794 F.3d 249 (2d Cir. 2015): Plaintiff-appellant Aidan A. Smith appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) dismissing his complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Is Manifest Disregard a Permissible Ground to Overturn an Award under the FAA? — Circuit Split — If So, It Requires More Than Legal Error — Arbitrator Must Appreciate & Ignore Clearly Governing Legal Principle

Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165427 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016): C. Manifest Disregard of the Law under 10(a)(4) Respondents bring their manifest disregard for the law assertion under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). Courts vary in their interpretation of the standard. See Hall S ...
Global Liquidity Partners, LLC v. Wegher, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165427 (D.N.J. Nov. 30, 2016): C. Manifest Disregard of the Law under 10(a)(4) Respondents bring their manifest disregard for the law assertion under 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4). Courts vary in…
Continue Reading

Are Pro Hac Vice Fees Recoverable Costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920? — Circuit Split —Cost of Video May Be Taxed in Addition to Deposition Transcript If Reasonably Necessary — Uncertainty as to Witness Attendance at Trial Is Sufficient

Olesky v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171505 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2016): Plaintiff Henryk Oleksy ("Oleksy") sued Defendant General Electric Company ("GE") for patent infringement. On September 29, 2015, the presiding District Judge ruled that [*4]  GE did not infringe on Oleksy's patent and, consequen ...
Olesky v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171505 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2016): Plaintiff Henryk Oleksy ("Oleksy") sued Defendant General Electric Company ("GE") for patent infringement. On September 29, 2015, the presiding District Judge ruled that [*4]  GE…
Continue Reading

Removal: If Plaintiff Adds Non-Diverse Defendant within 21 Days of Answer Per Rule 15(b), Should Court Honor That & Remand, Given Absolute Right to Amend, Or Deny Joinder under § 1447(e)? — Caselaw Split — Factors under 1447(e)

Edmond v. Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170896 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016): Proceedings (In Chambers): Order GRANTING Motion to Remand Before the Court is Plaintiff Britani Edmond's motion to remand this action to state court. Dkt. # 25. The Court finds this matter a ...
Edmond v. Kindred Healthcare Operating Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170896 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016): Proceedings (In Chambers): Order GRANTING Motion to Remand Before the Court is Plaintiff Britani Edmond's motion to remand this action to state court. Dkt.…
Continue Reading
Previous144145146147148149150Next

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