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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — On Summary Judgment, Court May Take Notice, for Background Purposes, of Facts about Parties from Their Websites

Powers v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130068 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2015): This case involves claims that false representations and warranties made in connection with a corporate acquisition justified the buying company in refusing to release to the seller certain funds held in escrow. On A ...
Powers v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130068 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2015): This case involves claims that false representations and warranties made in connection with a corporate acquisition justified the buying company in refusing to release …
Continue Reading

Experts — When Testimony Contains Reliable & Unreliable Opinions That Are Easily Distinguished, Only Latter Should Be Excluded — “While the District Court’s Discretion Is Considerable, It Is Not Unfettered” (Good Quote)

In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litig., 819 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2016): Plaintiffs-Appellants Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and Christine Fleckles, acting on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated investors (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern Dis ...
In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litig., 819 F.3d 642 (2d Cir. 2016): Plaintiffs-Appellants Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and Christine Fleckles, acting on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated investors (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), brought suit in the United States District…
Continue Reading

RICO PSLRA Bar — N.D. Ill. Rejects Several Circuit (and other N.D. Ill.) Decisions Holding That Bar Applies If Conduct Is Actionable as Securities Fraud by Anyone — Holds It Must Be Actionable by Plaintiff

Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92765 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2016) (Blakey, D.J.): Plaintiff is a rich man who, ostensibly through hard work and good fortune, put himself in a position to sell over sixty million dollars in stock in a company he helped create. No crime in that, closing on such a sale exemplifies part o ...
Menzies v. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92765 (N.D. Ill. July 15, 2016) (Blakey, D.J.): Plaintiff is a rich man who, ostensibly through hard work and good fortune, put himself in a position to sell over sixty million…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions Inapt Where Info Undisclosed Per 26(a)(1) Is Revealed in Discovery & No Sandbagging — Settlement Agreement (Release) Binding on Drafter Who Performs (Pays) Even Though Only Counterparty Ever Signs

Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16257 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): Bruce Stevens worked for Baker Petrolite Corporation and its predecessor for approximately seven years. When his employment ended, Stevens signed a contract in which he promised to maintain the confidentiality of Baker Petrolite's trade secre ...
Baker Hughes Inc. v. S&S Chem., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16257 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2016): Bruce Stevens worked for Baker Petrolite Corporation and its predecessor for approximately seven years. When his employment ended, Stevens signed a contract in…
Continue Reading

Good Quotes: In Pleading, As in Many Aspects of Life, Quality Matters More Than Quantity — Plaintiffs’ Unwieldy, Everything-But-the-Kitchen-Sink Approach — Rule 9(b) Does Not Permit Us to Assemble…Disjointed Facts into a Collage

Lawrie v Ginn Dev. Co., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13706 (11th Cir. July 28, 2016): In pleading, as in many aspects of life, quality matters more than quantity. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have tried to plead a cause of action for real estate fraud four times, with their most recent complaint [*3]  launching a ...
Lawrie v Ginn Dev. Co., LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13706 (11th Cir. July 28, 2016): In pleading, as in many aspects of life, quality matters more than quantity. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have tried to plead a cause …
Continue Reading

Appeals — TRO Appealable Only If It Decides Merits of the Case or Is Equivalent to Dismissal — Absolute Judicial Immunity on Injunctive Claim, Regardless of Error, Malice or Excess of Jurisdiction, Unless Jurisdiction Clearly Absent

Ellakkany v. Common Pleas Court of Montgomery Cnty., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13652 (3d Cir. July 27, 2016) : Appellant Mourad Ellakkany appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Because we conclude that this appeal presents no substantial question, we will ...
Ellakkany v. Common Pleas Court of Montgomery Cnty., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13652 (3d Cir. July 27, 2016) : Appellant Mourad Ellakkany appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Because…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power/Contempt Sanctions: Premature Notice of Appeal Cured by Entry of Judgment — Bad Faith Finding “Especially Critical” When Fees Shifted

Hernandez v. City of Vancouver, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14625 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016): MEMORANDUM* *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Boothe, an attorney, was f ...
Hernandez v. City of Vancouver, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14625 (9th Cir. Aug. 9, 2016): MEMORANDUM* *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Boothe, an attorney, was …
Continue Reading

Discovery Sanctions — Attorney’s Fees under Rule 37(b)(5) — Although Phrased in Seemingly Mandatory Terms, Court’s Discretion Is Broad — Excessive Fee Request May Be Denied as “Unjust” — Standard under 12(c) = Summary Judgment

Jones v. Dufek, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13549 (D.C. Cir. July 26, 2016): Tawanda Jones owed $1,050.29 to Bank of America. Bank of America sold the debt to CACH, LLC. That company hired the Law Office of David Sean Dufek in San Diego, California, to help it collect on the debt. In 2013, Dufek sent Jones the following letter:
Jones v. Dufek, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13549 (D.C. Cir. July 26, 2016): Tawanda Jones owed $1,050.29 to Bank of America. Bank of America sold the debt to CACH, LLC. That company hired the Law Office of David Sean Dufek…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court Precedent & Dicta: “Federal Courts Are Not Free to Limit Supreme Court Opinions to The[ir] Facts” & Are Bound by the Supreme Court’s Considered Dicta Almost as Firmly as by Its Outright Holdings (Good Quotes)

In re: Pre -Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15748 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016) (Benton, J., dissenting): [F]ederal courts "are not free to limit Supreme Court opinions to the facts of each case." McDonough v. Anoka Cnty., 799 F.3d 931, 942 (8th Cir. 2015) ...
In re: Pre -Filled Propane Tank Antitrust Litigation, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15748 (8th Cir. Aug. 25, 2016) (Benton, J., dissenting): [F]ederal courts "are not free to limit Supreme Court opinions to the facts of each case." McDonough v.…
Continue Reading

RICO: Bank + Outside Contractor, 2 Law Firms, Commc’ns & Processing Firms= AIF Enterprise—Pleading: “9(b) Does Not Require Omniscience” & 12(b)(6) Doesn’t Require “a Prima Facie Case for Each Element” (Good Quotes)

George v. Urban Settlement Servs., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14934 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016): Richard George, Steven Leavitt, Sandra Leavitt, and Darrell Dalton appeal the district court's dismissal of their putative class action against Urban Settlement Services, d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions (Urban) and Bank of Ameri ...
George v. Urban Settlement Servs., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14934 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2016): Richard George, Steven Leavitt, Sandra Leavitt, and Darrell Dalton appeal the district court's dismissal of their putative class action against Urban Settlement Services, d/b/a Urban…
Continue Reading
Previous155156157158159160161Next

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