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

Attorney-Client Privilege: Government Official Has No Personal Privilege with Government Lawyer Consulted on Ethics Issues (Government Holds Privilege) — Perhaps Different If Government Lawyer Representing Official Personally

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12860 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016): This case arises in the midst of an investigation by the federal government into activities of the former Governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber. A grand jury's subpoena seeks a broad range of information [*3]  from the S ...
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12860 (9th Cir. July 13, 2016): This case arises in the midst of an investigation by the federal government into activities of the former Governor of Oregon, John Kitzhaber. A…
Continue Reading

Voicemail Left for Employee A by Employee B, Who Was Investigating Employee A’s Race, Age & Gender Discrimination Claim, Is Admissible against Employer as an 801(d)(2) Admission

Ritchie v. Napolitano, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89279 (D.D.C. July 11, 2016): Plaintiff Scott Ritchie brings suit under (i) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") for race discrimination; (ii) Title VII for gender discrimination; and (iii) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA") for age ...
Ritchie v. Napolitano, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89279 (D.D.C. July 11, 2016): Plaintiff Scott Ritchie brings suit under (i) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") for race discrimination; (ii) Title VII for gender discrimination; and…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Critical Witness Affidavit Struck (Resulting in Summary Judgment) for Failure to Update Per 26(e) Witness’s Address on 26(a) Disclosure or Give Affidavit — Query re Affidavit: What about Hickman v. Taylor?

Emanuel v. Cnty. of Wayne, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11385 (6th Cir. June 20, 2016):  Plaintiff Lennox Emanuel was arrested after Wayne County Sheriff's Office personnel observed him speaking with a known prostitute, inviting the woman into his car, and then driving her to a motel parking lot a few miles away. After a Michigan state-c ...
Emanuel v. Cnty. of Wayne, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11385 (6th Cir. June 20, 2016):  Plaintiff Lennox Emanuel was arrested after Wayne County Sheriff's Office personnel observed him speaking with a known prostitute, inviting the woman into his car, and…
Continue Reading

RICO Enterprise: Is Association of a Few Individuals, without Meaningful Structure, Distinct from Those Individuals? — Good Quotes on RICO Predicates & Elements, Including Interstate Commerce (All Telephone Calls Are Presumed to Be Intrastate)

Aliev v. Borukhov, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88856 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016): On October 26, 2015, plaintiff Fariz Aliev ("Aliev") filed a complaint principally seeking damages against Neriya Borukhov, his brother Aron Borukhov, and two other individuals, Stella Akbashev ("Akbashev"), and Roshel Malakov ("Ma ...
Aliev v. Borukhov, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88856 (E.D.N.Y. July 8, 2016): On October 26, 2015, plaintiff Fariz Aliev ("Aliev") filed a complaint principally seeking damages against Neriya Borukhov, his brother Aron Borukhov, and two other individuals, Stella Akbashev ("Akbashev"), …
Continue Reading

RICO: Each Member of Enterprise Needn’t Know Each Other’s Role — Enough to Know General Nature of Enterprise & That It Extends Beyond His/Her Role — Conspiracy Conflation — Impact on Hub & Spoke?

United States v. Christensen, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12738 (9th Cir. July 8, 2016): Six defendants appeal their criminal convictions stemming from a widespread criminal enterprise offering illegal private investigation services in Southern California. At the center of this criminal enterprise was Pellicano Investigative Agency, ...
United States v. Christensen, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12738 (9th Cir. July 8, 2016): Six defendants appeal their criminal convictions stemming from a widespread criminal enterprise offering illegal private investigation services in Southern California. At the center of this criminal …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Inherent Power Extends to Misconduct before Court-Supervised Settlement Program, Apt to Punish Ethics Violations — Factors in Selecting Sanction — Loosely Formulated, Imprecise Objection Doesn’t Preserve Error (Good Quote)

In re Deepwater Horizon, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10069 (5th Cir. June 2, 2016): Glen Lerner and Jonathan Andry appeal the district court's sanction order disqualifying them from further participation in the Court-Supervised Settlement Program related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and Andry Lerner, L.L.C. appeals the den ...
In re Deepwater Horizon, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10069 (5th Cir. June 2, 2016): Glen Lerner and Jonathan Andry appeal the district court's sanction order disqualifying them from further participation in the Court-Supervised Settlement Program related to the Deepwater Horizon …
Continue Reading

Does Rule 15(b)(2) — Amendment of Complaint by Trial of the Issue on Express or Implied Consent — Apply at the Summary Judgment Stage? — Circuit Split

Cedar Valley Exteriors, Inc. v. Professional Exteriors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84868 (D. Minn. June 29, 2016): Plaintiff Cedar Valley Exteriors, Inc. ("Cedar Valley") brought this action against defendant Professional Exteriors, Inc. ("Professional Exteriors"), alleging that Professional Exteriors infringed tw ...
Cedar Valley Exteriors, Inc. v. Professional Exteriors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84868 (D. Minn. June 29, 2016): Plaintiff Cedar Valley Exteriors, Inc. ("Cedar Valley") brought this action against defendant Professional Exteriors, Inc. ("Professional Exteriors"), alleging that Professional Exteriors infringed…
Continue Reading

Removal: Pre-Suit Discovery Proceedings Are Removable Under the Removal Clarification Act of 2011, As Are Other Previously Unremovable Proceedings

Estate of Wisler, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8690 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2016): In 2011, Congress passed the Removal Clarification Act of 2011 in response to "recent Federal court cases that reflect an inter- and intra-circuit split as to whether State 'pre-suit discovery' laws qualify as civil actions or criminal prosecutions th ...
Estate of Wisler, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8690 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2016): In 2011, Congress passed the Removal Clarification Act of 2011 in response to "recent Federal court cases that reflect an inter- and intra-circuit split as to whether…
Continue Reading

RICO: Threat to File Suit against Government, Even If Made in Bad Faith & Supported by False Affidavits, Isn’t “Wrongful” within Hobbs Act — Where Citizen May Request Records Anonymously, Using Fake Identity ≠ Mail Fraud

Town of Gulfstream v. O’Boyle, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11183 (11th Cir. June 21, 2016): The Town of Gulf Stream, Florida ("Gulf Stream" or the "town") and its contractor Wantman Group, Inc. ("Wantman") (collectively the "plaintiffs") appeal the dismissal of their class action complaint1
Town of Gulfstream v. O’Boyle, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11183 (11th Cir. June 21, 2016): The Town of Gulf Stream, Florida ("Gulf Stream" or the "town") and its contractor Wantman Group, Inc. ("Wantman") (collectively the "plaintiffs") appeal the dismissal of…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Elements of Substantive Spoliation Cause of Action under Ohio Law

Newberry v. Silverman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8904 (6th Cir. May 29, 2015): 3. Because Newberry's [*23]  complaint against Silverman was not disrupted by the allegedly destroyed dental records, the spoliation claim cannot stand Finally, the district court correctly determined that Newberry& ...
Newberry v. Silverman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8904 (6th Cir. May 29, 2015): 3. Because Newberry's [*23]  complaint against Silverman was not disrupted by the allegedly destroyed dental records, the spoliation claim cannot stand Finally, the district court correctly determined…
Continue Reading
Previous160161162163164165166Next

Recent Posts

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

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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