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

Twitter Admissibility — Third Party Tweet Admissible for Effect on Reader (to Explain Reader’s Subsequent Behavior), Not for Its Truth

R.L. v. Central York Sch. Dist., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58446 (M.D. Pa. May 3, 2016): PROCEDURAL HISTORY Our recitation of the procedural history of the instant matter is abbreviated, as it is recounted solely for the benefit of the parties, who are familiar with the matter. R.L., a minor, by and ...
R.L. v. Central York Sch. Dist., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58446 (M.D. Pa. May 3, 2016): PROCEDURAL HISTORY Our recitation of the procedural history of the instant matter is abbreviated, as it is recounted solely for the benefit of the…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Where Court Orders § 1927 Sanctions on Motion and Movant Does Not Oppose Vacatur of Award of Movant’s Own Costs and Fees, Award Should Be Vacated (Reversing Refusal to Do So)

Coniglio v. Chesapeake Exploration LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8871 (6th Cir. May 12, 2016): Attorneys from the law firm Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos, Ltd. ("TPM") appeal the district court's order imposing 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions for vexatious multiplication of the proceedings. TPM represented Plaintiffs ...
Coniglio v. Chesapeake Exploration LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8871 (6th Cir. May 12, 2016): Attorneys from the law firm Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos, Ltd. ("TPM") appeal the district court's order imposing 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions for vexatious multiplication …
Continue Reading

CAFA Removal — Plaintiff Always Has Art. III Standing to Fight Removal — CAFA Remand Motion Not Subject to 30-Day Deadline of §1447(c) — 52 Days OK — Not All Defendants Are “Primary” — OK to Drop Fed Claims to Return to State Court

Watson v. City of Allen, Tex., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8367 (5th Cir. May 5, 2016): This putative class action challenges the use of red light cameras within Texas and, more specifically, the legislation authorizing such cameras. The case was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court. We must decid ...
Watson v. City of Allen, Tex., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8367 (5th Cir. May 5, 2016): This putative class action challenges the use of red light cameras within Texas and, more specifically, the legislation authorizing such cameras. The case was …
Continue Reading

Removal — Is the Forum Defendant Rule (Barring Citizens of Forum from Removing) Waived If No Motion for Remand Is Filed within 30 Days? — Circuit Split

Harris v. MLB Consulting, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21000 (D. N.D. Jan. 12, 2016): Plaintiff Kyle Harris (Harris) filed a motion to remand this case to state court, contending that removal to federal court was improper under the forum defendant rule of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) because defendant Petroleum Experience, Inc. ...
Harris v. MLB Consulting, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21000 (D. N.D. Jan. 12, 2016): Plaintiff Kyle Harris (Harris) filed a motion to remand this case to state court, contending that removal to federal court was improper under the forum …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Prejudgment Interest Allowed on Attorney’s Fees Award under § 1927 (and Other Sanctions Statutes) — No Vicarious Liability for Law Firm under § 1927

Gamage v.State of Nevada, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6371 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016): Sujanie Gamage ("Gamage"), her attorney Jason Bach ("Bach"), and The Bach Law Firm appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants State of Nevada and Vernon Hodge, as well as the district cou ...
Gamage v.State of Nevada, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6371 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2016): Sujanie Gamage ("Gamage"), her attorney Jason Bach ("Bach"), and The Bach Law Firm appeal the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants State …
Continue Reading

RICO — Open-Ended Continuity Shown by Evergreen Contract (Alone, Not Enough) + Defendants’ Perpetrating Same Scheme on 2d Victim (Different Scheme Irrelevant) — Lack of Continuity Not Shown by Interruption Due to Fortuitous Discovery

Kalitta Air, LLC v. GSBD & Assocs., 591 F. App'x 338 (6th Cir. 2014): A company contracted to buy jet fuel for its air-cargo business from a supplier that allegedly touted its ability to discount the price through its connections with international banks and with the Saudi royal family. Months and millions of dollars later ...
Kalitta Air, LLC v. GSBD & Assocs., 591 F. App'x 338 (6th Cir. 2014): A company contracted to buy jet fuel for its air-cargo business from a supplier that allegedly touted its ability to discount the price through its connections …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Bad Faith Still Required for Adverse Inference Instruction for Spoliation of Electronic Data in Criminal Cases (5th Circuit)

United States v. Valas, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9308 (5th Cir. May 20, 2016): A jury convicted Raymond Valas of engaging in a commercial sex act with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Valas argues on appeal that the district court improperly instructed his jury on § 1591's scienter requirement. He also raises five alleged ...
United States v. Valas, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9308 (5th Cir. May 20, 2016): A jury convicted Raymond Valas of engaging in a commercial sex act with a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591. Valas argues on appeal…
Continue Reading

RICO: Indian Tribes Are Governmental Entities Not Subject to RICO Liability — They Are “Persons” But Immune — They Have the Mens Rea of Their Officials — Injunctive Relief Is Available in Private RICO Actions

Gingras v. Rosette, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66833 (D. Vt. May 18, 2016); Plaintiffs have filed a class action against individuals and companies involved in an online lending venture operated by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation in Montana (the Tribe). They claim that the "payday" loans offered b ...
Gingras v. Rosette, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66833 (D. Vt. May 18, 2016); Plaintiffs have filed a class action against individuals and companies involved in an online lending venture operated by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Indian…
Continue Reading

Deposition Errata Sheets: To What Extent May Changes Be Made? — Does Sham Affidavit Rule Apply? — Circuit Split — Substantive vs. Transcription Errors vs. New Evidence or Confusion Rectifying

LAW REGARDING ERRATA CORRECTIONS Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61657 (D. N.M. May 10, 2016): Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the deponent, within 30 days after notification that the transcript is available, to: &q ...
LAW REGARDING ERRATA CORRECTIONS Securities and Exchange Commission v. Goldstone, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61657 (D. N.M. May 10, 2016): Rule 30(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the deponent, within 30 days after notification that the transcript …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Standing — Injury in Fact Must Be Both Particularized and Concrete, Even in the Context of a Statutory Violation Providing a Cause of Action and Statutory Damages

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3046 (U.S. May 16, 2016): This case presents the question whether respondent Robins has standing to maintain an action in federal court against petitioner Spokeo under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 (FCRA or Act), 84 Stat. 1127, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §1681 et seq ...
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 3046 (U.S. May 16, 2016): This case presents the question whether respondent Robins has standing to maintain an action in federal court against petitioner Spokeo under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970…
Continue Reading
Previous165166167168169170171Next

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