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

Rule 37 Dismissal Sanction Requires Wilfulness, Bad Faith, Fault — 4 Factors — 2 Years’ Noncompliance = Inference of Wilfulness — Order May Inc. Doc. Requests — Boilerplate Clam of Search Doesn’t Demonstrate Adequacy or Explain Missing Docs

Bhagwanani v. Brown, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19892 (2d Cir. Nov. 4, 2016): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the August 28, 2015 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their complaint for failure to comply with ...
Bhagwanani v. Brown, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19892 (2d Cir. Nov. 4, 2016): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the August 28, 2015 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs appeal from…
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility: The Mere Fact That an Email Was Created within a Business Entity Does Not Make It a Business Record — All Prongs of 803(6) Must Be Satisfied

In re Lyondell Chem. Co. (Weisfelner v. Blavatnick), 2016 WL 6108526 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016):   Before the Court are two letter briefs regarding 210 emails and other documents (the “Exhibits”) offered as trial exhibits by Edward S. Weisfelner, as Trustee of the LB Litigation Trust (the “Trustee”).
In re Lyondell Chem. Co. (Weisfelner v. Blavatnick), 2016 WL 6108526 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016):   Before the Court are two letter briefs regarding 210 emails and other documents (the “Exhibits”) offered as trial exhibits by Edward S. Weisfelner, as …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Imposed on Client Largely for Defects in Legal Theories Reversed in Entirety Because “Error So Infused District Court’s Reasoning” — Remanded for Consideration Whether Some Should Be Imposed on Plaintiff’s Counsel

Tacoronte v. Greenspoon Marder P.A., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11416 (11th Cir. 2016): The district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff Danielle Tacoronte and ordered her to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs to Defendants Greenspoon Marder and Marc Cohen. Plaintiff appeals the district court's order im ...
Tacoronte v. Greenspoon Marder P.A., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11416 (11th Cir. 2016): The district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions against Plaintiff Danielle Tacoronte and ordered her to pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs to Defendants Greenspoon Marder and Marc…
Continue Reading

Hearsay Emails May Be Considered on Summary Judgment under Rule 56(c)(2) If the Authors Could Testify to the Contents at Trial

Griffith v. Nicholas Financial, Inc, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135524 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2016): Plaintiff Krysti Griffith is a former employee of defendant Nicholas Financial, Inc. Ms. Griffith has systematic lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune disease commonly called lupus. Ms. Griffith worked for Nicholas Financial as a customer servic ...
Griffith v. Nicholas Financial, Inc, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135524 (N.D. Ala. Sept. 30, 2016): Plaintiff Krysti Griffith is a former employee of defendant Nicholas Financial, Inc. Ms. Griffith has systematic lupus erythematosus, an autoimmune disease commonly called lupus. Ms.…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Inadvertent Production of Privileged/Work Product Documents Doesn’t Necessarily Preclude Application of Perlman, But Disclosure of Documents to Grand Jury Does (2-1 3d Circuit Decision)

In re Grand Jury Matter 3, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19454 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2016): Company A, John Doe 1, John Doe 1's lawyer, and John Doe 2 are the subjects of an ongoing grand jury investigation into an allegedly fraudulent business scheme.2 John Doe 1 brought this appeal after the government obtained access to an email ...
In re Grand Jury Matter 3, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19454 (3d Cir. Oct. 28, 2016): Company A, John Doe 1, John Doe 1's lawyer, and John Doe 2 are the subjects of an ongoing grand jury investigation into an…
Continue Reading

Removal — Does §1447(c) Allow Dismissal If Remand Is Futile? (Circuit Split) — Class Counsel Are Federal Officers in Sending Class Notice, May Remove State Class Rep’s Attempt to Enjoin It — Case Dismissed on Merits Though No Subj. Matter Jurisd.

Devazier v. Seeco, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92231 (E.D. Ark. July 15, 2016): AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER1   1   The Court enters this Amended [*2]  Order amending only the conclusion of the Court's July 13, 2016, Opinion and Order to ...
Devazier v. Seeco, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92231 (E.D. Ark. July 15, 2016): AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER1   1   The Court enters this Amended [*2]  Order amending only the conclusion of the Court's July 13, 2016, Opinion and Order…
Continue Reading

Appeals — Denial of Leave to Amend Reviewed De Novo If on Futility Grounds, Otherwise for Abuse of Discretion

HansaWorld USA, Inc. v. Carpenter, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18950 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016): II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This court ordinarily reviews [*4]  a district court's denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. City of Clinton v. Pilgrim's Pride ...
HansaWorld USA, Inc. v. Carpenter, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18950 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016): II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This court ordinarily reviews [*4]  a district court's denial of a motion for leave to amend a complaint for an abuse …
Continue Reading

Claim-Splitting Barred by Res Judicata — Denial of Leave to Amend, Even on Timeliness Grounds = Adjudication on the Merits of the Claim Sought to Be Brought — Federal Court May Stay or Dismiss Duplicative Suit, But Doesn’t Have to

Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Employees’ 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. Mears, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115295 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2016): On February 18, 2016, Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. Employees 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust ("the Plan"), by its acting trustee, Thomas Potts, Jr., filed this ERISA and neg ...
Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., Employees’ 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust v. Mears, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115295 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 29, 2016): On February 18, 2016, Elmhurst Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. Employees 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan and Trust ("the Plan"), by its…
Continue Reading

RICO Claim Survives Death (Caselaw Split) — Failure of Evidence at Trial (Continuity) Can’t Be Cured by Looking at Summary Judgment Proceedings — Only Trial Evidence Matters — Good Quote on Modern Litigation in Which SJ, Not Trial, Is Focus

Malvino v. Delluniversita, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18952 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016): As she approached retirement, Bonnie Pereida spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on rare coins. She thought the coins would be a good hedge against inflation. After she passed away, an appraisal revealed that her coin collection included a counterfeit c ...
Malvino v. Delluniversita, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18952 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016): As she approached retirement, Bonnie Pereida spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on rare coins. She thought the coins would be a good hedge against inflation. After…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 & Inherent Power Sanctions Require Conduct (1) Entirely without Color (2) Motivated by Improper Purpose — $180,000 in Attorney’s Fees for Amended Complaint Containing Uncorrected, Unsupported Allegations and Concealing Evidence

Rabin v. Dow Jones & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19227 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2016): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff I. Stephen Rabin, a lawyer, and Raymond A ...
Rabin v. Dow Jones & Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 19227 (2d Cir. Oct. 25, 2016): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. Plaintiff I.…
Continue Reading
Previous149150151152153154155Next

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