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

§ 1927 Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed for Initial Pleading — Court 1 Cannot Impose Sanctions for Filing of Second Lawsuit in Second Court That Lacked Jurisdiction to Entertain It

Best Odds Corp. v. Ibus Media Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13335 (9th Cir. July 21, 2016): Best Odds Corp. appeals the district court's order issuing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse and vacate the award of attorneys' fees. The district court abused ...
Best Odds Corp. v. Ibus Media Ltd., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13335 (9th Cir. July 21, 2016): Best Odds Corp. appeals the district court's order issuing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §…
Continue Reading

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence — Bad Faith Required in Fifth Circuit (No Change Post 37(e))

Estes v. Lanx, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15328 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016): Rocky Estes had a Lanx-created device, the Telluride system, implanted to fuse his spinal vertebrae. After several months, the screws in the system fractured and broke. As a result, the device had to be removed and replaced. About a year later, Estes sue ...
Estes v. Lanx, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15328 (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016): Rocky Estes had a Lanx-created device, the Telluride system, implanted to fuse his spinal vertebrae. After several months, the screws in the system fractured and broke. …
Continue Reading

RICO: Enterprise Can Be Both Victim & Vehicle — Good Quotes, e.g.: “There Is A Plausible Claim Something Odd Was Going On….Oddity Alone Won’t Support a RICO Claim”

Jupiter Aluminum Corp. v. Sabaitis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123843 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 13, 2016): Something went [*2]  very wrong at Jupiter Aluminum Corporation in fiscal year 2014. Jupiter is an Indiana corporation in the business of converting scrap aluminum into coils. It contracts with vendors to provide the scrap. < ...
Jupiter Aluminum Corp. v. Sabaitis, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123843 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 13, 2016): Something went [*2]  very wrong at Jupiter Aluminum Corporation in fiscal year 2014. Jupiter is an Indiana corporation in the business of converting scrap aluminum…
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Internet Browsing History, Which Shows Past Searches, Is Relevant to Motivation and Predisposition

State v. Bingman, 2016 Wash. App. LEXIS 1505 (Wash. Ct. App. June 28, 2016): David Bingman appeals his convictions for three counts of second degree child molestation and two counts of fourth degree assault involving his 13-year-old daughter and his 12-year-old stepdaughter. He argues that the trial court erred under ER 404(b) ...
State v. Bingman, 2016 Wash. App. LEXIS 1505 (Wash. Ct. App. June 28, 2016): David Bingman appeals his convictions for three counts of second degree child molestation and two counts of fourth degree assault involving his 13-year-old daughter and his…
Continue Reading

Appeals: Trial Counsel’s Misconduct Reversible Only If Pervasive — Waiver by Failure to Object to Argument or Detail Complaints — Broad Statements, References in Passing in Brief Not Enough

Leonard v. Stemtech Int’l Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15565 (3d Cir. Aug. 24, 2016): 1. Counsel's Conduct Stemtech complains that Leonard's counsel made comments during the trial that so prejudiced the jury that the District Court should have granted a new trial. Counsel's conduct "co ...
Leonard v. Stemtech Int’l Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15565 (3d Cir. Aug. 24, 2016): 1. Counsel's Conduct Stemtech complains that Leonard's counsel made comments during the trial that so prejudiced the jury that the District Court should have granted…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Circuit Split over Proper Way to Analyze Predominance — Applicability of Comcast to Individual Damages

Abraham v. WPX Production Productions, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108492 (D. N.M. Aug. 16, 2016): THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, filed January 13, 2014 (Doc. 116). The Court held a multi-part [*2]  class certification ...
Abraham v. WPX Production Productions, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108492 (D. N.M. Aug. 16, 2016): THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification, filed January 13, 2014 (Doc. 116). The Court held a…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — No Adverse Inference Where Records Destroyed in Ordinary Course of Business and Movant Failed to Timely Request Them During Discovery

Diaz v. Dep’t of Treasury, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14114 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2016): Hector Diaz appeals from the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining his removal from the position of Individual Taxpayer Adviser Specialist. Because the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and ...
Diaz v. Dep’t of Treasury, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14114 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2016): Hector Diaz appeals from the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining his removal from the position of Individual Taxpayer Adviser Specialist. Because…
Continue Reading

RICO Claim Inextricably Intertwined with Alleged State Court Errors / Lack of Jurisdiction Barred by Rooker-Feldman — Obstruction Predicate Limited to Federal Proceedings — Vague Conspiracy Allegations Fail under Twiqbal

Bhardwaj v. Pathak, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16283 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Sanjay Bhardwaj appeals pro se from the district court's dismissal of his Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( ...
Bhardwaj v. Pathak, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16283 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Sanjay Bhardwaj appeals pro se from the…
Continue Reading

Sanction Imposed for Violation of District Court’s Local Rules (Suspension of Right to Practice), Unlike Inherent Power Sanction, Does Not Require Finding of Bad Faith

In re Goode, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6918 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2016): This appeal involves a challenge to Western District of Louisiana Local Criminal Rule 53.5 ("L. Crim. R. 53.5"), which operates as a prior restraint against attorney speech during the pendency of a criminal trial. William L. Goode, a criminal defense at ...
In re Goode, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6918 (5th Cir. Apr. 18, 2016): This appeal involves a challenge to Western District of Louisiana Local Criminal Rule 53.5 ("L. Crim. R. 53.5"), which operates as a prior restraint against attorney speech …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Rule 11 Inapplicable on Appeal — Fed.R.App.P. 38 Applies Only to Appellants

United States v. Medansky, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15845 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): David and Martine Mednansky appeal pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States in an ejectment and trespass suit brought by the government. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
United States v. Medansky, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15845 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): David and Martine Mednansky appeal pro se from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States in an ejectment and trespass suit brought…
Continue Reading
Previous154155156157158159160Next

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