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

Disqualification — Mandamus: Nonparty’s Ex-Lawyer Pointing Finger at Nonparty Subject to Prosecution — Trial Taint = Substantial Relationship + Confidential Info — Collateral Order Doctrine Inapt — Confidentiality

United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2016): Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, J.)2 from the denial of Hermitage Capital Management Ltd.'s ("Hermitage") motion to disqualify counsel for Pre ...
United States v. Prevezon Holdings, Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (2d Cir. Oct. 17, 2016): Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, J.)2 from the denial of Hermitage Capital Management…
Continue Reading

District Courts Must Generally Follow Their Own Local Rules (Good Quote) — No Sanctions for Conduct Consistent with Local Rules — If Order Is Reversed, Are Sanctions Imposed for Violating It Necessarily Reversed? — Not Always

Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17643 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2016): Parrot, S.A. and Parrot, Inc. (collectively, "Parrot") appeal from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that awarded Drone Technologies, Inc. ("Drone") damages ...
Drone Techs., Inc. v. Parrot S.A., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 17643 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2016): Parrot, S.A. and Parrot, Inc. (collectively, "Parrot") appeal from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania …
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Refusal to Grant Continuance Sought by Both Parties Not Per Se Ground for Vacatur under FAA §10(a)(3) (vacatur for “misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing”) — Arbitrator May Consider Own Convenience & Need for Expedition

CM S.E. Texas Houston, LLC v. CareMinders Home Care, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18218 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016): PER CURIAM: CareMinders Home Care, Inc. appeals the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs CM South East Texas Houston, LLC and South East Texas KCH Co., LLC. CareMind ...
CM S.E. Texas Houston, LLC v. CareMinders Home Care, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18218 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2016): PER CURIAM: CareMinders Home Care, Inc. appeals the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award in favor of plaintiffs CM …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Failure to Provide Opportunity to Be Heard Requires Vacatur of Sanction (Dismissal of Prisoner Action after Shard of Glass Found in Envelope to Court But Prisoner Denies Responsibility)

Birdo v. Urbanosky, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18632 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2015): Kevin Birdo, an Illinois inmate, broke a finger in August 2012. By his account the prison medical staff waited three weeks before treating the injury and then, after acknowledging that surgery was needed because the delay had caused the break to heal improperly, ...
Birdo v. Urbanosky, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 18632 (7th Cir. Oct. 23, 2015): Kevin Birdo, an Illinois inmate, broke a finger in August 2012. By his account the prison medical staff waited three weeks before treating the injury and then,…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Email Referred to in Complaint — Extensive Reliance on Wikipedia and Investopedia for Understanding of Complex Financial Instruments and Transactions in Deciding In Limine Motion

SEC v. Goldstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72648 (D. N.M. June 3, 2016): MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion in Limine Regarding KPMG, filed March 17, 2016 (Doc. 390)("Motion"). The Co ...
SEC v. Goldstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72648 (D. N.M. June 3, 2016): MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission's Motion in Limine Regarding KPMG, filed March 17, 2016 (Doc. 390)("Motion"). …
Continue Reading

Appeals — Failure to Identify Any Error in Lower Court’s Analysis, as Opposed to Berating Conclusion, “Is the Same As If [Appellant] Had Not Appealed That Issue” (Good Quote)

Stevens v. Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14546 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2016): PER CURIAM:* *   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th ...
Stevens v. Calvary Chapel of Twin Falls, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14546 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2016): PER CURIAM:* *   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — 7th Circuit Overrules Precedent, Holds Non-Monetary Sanction Appealable — Itemizes Harms from Findings — Absence of Appellee Doesn’t Affect Appealability — Settlement of Attorney’s Fees Doesn’t Moot Sanctions

Martinez v. City of Chicago, 823 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 2016): The principal question presented by this appeal is whether an order by a district court imposing a sanction on a lawyer for misconduct in a case before the court can ever be appealed if the sanction lacks a monetary component. As part of a law ...
Martinez v. City of Chicago, 823 F.3d 1050 (7th Cir. 2016): The principal question presented by this appeal is whether an order by a district court imposing a sanction on a lawyer for misconduct in a case before the court …
Continue Reading

Removal: Second Removal Notice May Be Entertained Only If There Has Been a Change of Circumstances Such That It Is Based on a New and Different Ground — Does This Rule Apply in CAFA Cases?

Taylor v. Cox Commc’ns Cal., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65656 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2016): I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This wage-and-hour class action was filed by Plaintiff Bill Taylor against Defendants Cox Communications California, LLC and Cox Communications, Inc. (together, "Defendants") in sta ...
Taylor v. Cox Commc’ns Cal., LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65656 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2016): I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND This wage-and-hour class action was filed by Plaintiff Bill Taylor against Defendants Cox Communications California, LLC and Cox Communications, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Barring Victim Who Defrauded Court-Supervised Settlement Fund from Collecting More and Ordering Return of All Received — Opportunity to Respond in Writing Satisfies Due Process — Implicit Inherent Power Sanction

In re Deepwater Horizon, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6468 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016): In 2014, Special Master Louis J. Freeh filed a motion with the district court overseeing the Deepwater Horizon settlement fund to have Capt Jay, LLC, and Jason Zirlott remit monetary amounts that they collected from the fund. Freeh argued that Capt Ja ...
In re Deepwater Horizon, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6468 (5th Cir. Apr. 8, 2016): In 2014, Special Master Louis J. Freeh filed a motion with the district court overseeing the Deepwater Horizon settlement fund to have Capt Jay, LLC, and…
Continue Reading
Previous151152153154155156157Next

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