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

Newly Amended Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (effective Dec. 1, 2023) – Marked Up to Show Changes – With Advisory Committee Note

 Rule 702.        Testimony by Expert Witnesses              A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that: ...
 Rule 702.        Testimony by Expert Witnesses              A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it …
Continue Reading

Section 1927 Sanctions: (1) No Bad Faith Required—Intentionality or Knowing Disregard Suffice (Sixth Circuit); (2) Filing Complaint Collaterally Attacking Prior Appellate Decision Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplied the Proceedings; (3) Lump Sum Award of $5,000 under § 1927 Affirmed

Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29975 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM. Lucinda Jones, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's judgment that dismissed her amended ...
Jones v. Hamilton Cnty., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29975 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM. Lucinda Jones, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s judgment that dismissed her amended complaint against Circuit Judge David W. McKeague,…
Continue Reading

(1) Section 1927 Sanctions Precluded by Denial of Summary Judgment; (2) Filing of Complaint Found Meritless on Appeal Not Automatically Sanctionable under § 1927 (Sixth Circuit); (3) Post-Judgment Rule 11 Motion Fails for Failure to Provide 21-Day Safe Harbor

CAN IV Packard Square, LLC v. Schubiner, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30292 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER Craig Schubiner, a pro se New York resident, appeals the district court's order denyin ...
CAN IV Packard Square, LLC v. Schubiner, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30292 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER Craig Schubiner, a pro se New York resident, appeals the district court’s order denying his post-judgment motion for sanctions against Can…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: (1) Bad Faith in Manufacturing Personal Injuries Supposedly Caused by Accident—By Lying to Doctors, Court, Opponent And Plaintiff’s Own Counsel—Warranted Dismissal of All Non-Economic Damages Claims; (2) Proper under Goodyear v. Haeger to Award All Attorney’s Fees Incurred in Defending Action Initiated in Bad Faith; (3) Tenth Circuit Factors Governing Dismissal for Discovery Misconduct; (4) “The Lodestar Calculation Produces a Presumptively Reasonable Fee” (Good Quote); (5) Furnishing Business Records Certification Just Prior to Trial Violates Fed. R. Evid. 902(11) Requirement That Opponent Be Given “A Fair Opportunity to Challenge” The Certification and Record

Stetson v. Edmonds, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30361 (10th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023) When a party to litigation seeks to intentionally deceive the court and its adversary, a district court may issue reasonable sanctions and re ...
Stetson v. Edmonds, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30361 (10th Cir. Nov. 15, 2023) When a party to litigation seeks to intentionally deceive the court and its adversary, a district court may issue reasonable sanctions and require the deceitful party to…
Continue Reading

Experts: “Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Is Neither A Rule Of Legal Causation,, Nor Typically A Sufficient Methodological Basis For An Expert Opinion On Causation” (Good Quote) – Medical Testimony on Diagnosis vs. Etiology (Cause of Symptoms vs. Cause of Disorder)

Finley v. Mora, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30407 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023): While attempting to park his tractor-trailer at a rest stop, Manuel Mora collided with Jake Finley's already-parked tractor-trailer. Finley sued Mora and Nina Transport, Inc.,
Finley v. Mora, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30407 (6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2023): While attempting to park his tractor-trailer at a rest stop, Manuel Mora collided with Jake Finley’s already-parked tractor-trailer. Finley sued Mora and Nina Transport, Inc.,1 Mora’s…
Continue Reading

(1) Experts: 701 vs. 702 Testimony — Business Owner/Officer May Offer Lay Opinion of Value or Future Profits Based on Particularized Knowledge Derived from Position And Straightforward, Common Sense Calculations — (2) CFO’s Testimony Based on Previous Professional Experience Creating Budget Forecasts and Utilizing Complex, Sophisticated Formulas Improperly Admitted Under 701, Constituted 702 Testimony — (3) Contract Interpretation: A Broad Heading Cannot Override the Specific Language of a Particular Clause — (4) If Appellant Does Not Challenge Trial Court’s Alternate Ground for Its Ruling, Appellate Court May Affirm

Lambland, Inc. v. Heartland Biogas, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25502 (10th Cir. Sept. 27, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* At its most b ...
Lambland, Inc. v. Heartland Biogas, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 25502 (10th Cir. Sept. 27, 2023) (unpublished) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* At its most basic level, this case involves a breach of contract and the resulting damages. But to determine…
Continue Reading

Contract Formation Online — When Is A Customer Bound by Unread/Unclicked-On Terms And Conditions? — 2-Part Test: Inquiry Notice & Unambiguous Manifestation of Consent — What Is A “Reasonably Prudent” Internet User? — When Is That Person on Inquiry Notice? — What Constitutes An Unambiguous Manifestation of Consent?

Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29285 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2023): Defendant-appellant Klarna, Inc. ("Klarna") provides a "buy now, pay later" service that allows shoppers to buy a product and pay for it in four equal installments over t ...
Edmundson v. Klarna, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29285 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2023): Defendant-appellant Klarna, Inc. (“Klarna”) provides a “buy now, pay later” service that allows shoppers to buy a product and pay for it in four equal installments…
Continue Reading

Federal Court of Appeals Is Bound by Decisions of State Intermediate Appellate Courts Absent Persuasive Evidence The State’s Highest Court Would Reach a Different Decision

Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29283 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) (unpublished): "We are bound, as was the district court, to apply the law as interpreted by New York's intermediate appellate courts . . . unless we find persuasive ...
Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 29283 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2023) (unpublished): “We are bound, as was the district court, to apply the law as interpreted by New York’s intermediate appellate courts . . . unless…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions – Default Judgment: (1) 4-Factor Test for Litigation-Ending Sanctions for Discovery Abuse (Fifth Circuit); (2) Deletion and Manipulation of Source Code As Spoliation; (3) Detailed Consideration of Lesser Sanctions Excused Where It Is Clear Lesser Sanctions Would Have Been Futile—Especially Where the Misconduct Was Egregious And Repeated, And There Has Been A Warning; (4) Giving A Second Or Third Chance Before Imposing Litigation-Ending Sanctions Itself Amounts to a Lesser Sanction; (5) A Default Judgment Is Sometimes The Only Practicable Solution; (6) Where Party Appealing Denial of Rule 60(b) Motion for Reconsideration Failed to Object to the R&R Adopted by the District Court, Appellate Review Is for Plain Error Only

Calsep A/S v. Dabral, 84 F.4th 304 (5th Cir. 2023): One company, alleging that another company stole the code for its software product, filed a lawsuit. During discovery, the alleged thief destroyed electronic evidence. That was a violation of several court orders and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So, the district court sanctioned the spoliator by entering a default judg ...
Calsep A/S v. Dabral, 84 F.4th 304 (5th Cir. 2023): One company, alleging that another company stole the code for its software product, filed a lawsuit. During discovery, the alleged thief destroyed electronic evidence. That was a violation of several…
Continue Reading

Section 1927 Sanctions: (1) While Review Is Generally Abuse-of-Discretion, It Is De Novo When Exercise of Discretion Depends on a Purely Legal Issue; (2) 4. Survival on Rule 56 and 52 Motions On The Same Grounds Used Later To Sanction Plaintiffs’ Counsel Shows That They Didn’t Pursue Their Claims Recklessly; (3) Absent a Misrepresentation to the Court, Parties May Rely on Success in Rule 56 and 52 Motions As Indicators That Their Claims Were Objectively Reasonable and Suitable for Trial, Although Court Notes That Survival on Rule 52 and 56 Motions Doesn’t Automatically Preclude § 1927 Sanctions; Court Cannot Impose § 1927 Sanctions For Failing To Sustain Burden Of Proof Where Court Accepted That Quantum Of Evidence As Sufficient On Summary Judgment; Survival on Daubert Motion Precludes § 1927 Sanctions for Continued Reliance on Expert to Proceed to Trial

Obeslo v. Empower Capital Mgmt., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28812 (10th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023):
Obeslo v. Empower Capital Mgmt., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 28812 (10th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023): *1 Two law firms that represented Plaintiffs in this litigation, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP (“SBD”) and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP (“SWCK”), appeal the…
Continue Reading
Previous12131415161718Next

Recent Posts

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

There Is No Good-Faith Defense For Issuing An Overly Burdensome Subpoena

Purposes of Rule 37 and Section 1927 Sanctions

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