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

Sanctions — Rule 11 Does Not Apply on Appeal and FRAP 38 Does Not Apply to Appellees

Caldwell v. Pesce, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6739 (2d Cir. Apr. 14, 2016): Plaintiffs-appellants Ken and Lisa Caldwell, proceeding pro se, appeal the District Court's March 2, 2015, judgment sua sponte dismissing their complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In their complaint, plaintiffs-appella ...
Caldwell v. Pesce, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6739 (2d Cir. Apr. 14, 2016): Plaintiffs-appellants Ken and Lisa Caldwell, proceeding pro se, appeal the District Court's March 2, 2015, judgment sua sponte dismissing their complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.…
Continue Reading

Handwriting Expert Testimony Inadmissible — Sanctions: Lawyer May Rely on Client without Assessing Credibility; Improper to Impose $ Sanctions on Destitute Party; Dismissal for Fraud on Court — Statute of Frauds vs. Unjust Enrichment

Almeciga v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting,Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60539 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2016): Before the Court is the motion of defendant Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. ("CIR"), for judgment on the pleadings, as well as CIR's Rule 11 motion for sanctions against plaintiff Erica Almeciga and her counsel ...
Almeciga v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting,Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60539 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2016): Before the Court is the motion of defendant Center for Investigative Reporting, Inc. ("CIR"), for judgment on the pleadings, as well as CIR's Rule 11…
Continue Reading

Breach of Contractual Promise = Mail/Wire Fraud Only If No Intent to Perform at Signing — Later Willful Breach Not Enough — Deception Outside 4 Corners (E.g., to Hide Breach) May Be Enough — Silence Suffices If Duty to Speak

U.S. ex rel. O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9365 (2d Cir. May 23, 2016): When can a breach of contract also support a claim for fraud? This question--long an issue in common-law courts--comes before us in the context of a judgment in the United States District Court for the Southern ...
U.S. ex rel. O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9365 (2d Cir. May 23, 2016): When can a breach of contract also support a claim for fraud? This question–long an issue in common-law courts–comes before us…
Continue Reading

RICO — Association Standing: 3-Part Test — Medical Societies Lack Standing to Sue Even for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief for RICO Violations: The Relief Requested Requires Participation of Their Members

Franco v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7886 (3d Cir. May 2, 2016): I. These consolidated appeals have three sets of Appellants. First, there are those Appellants who are participants in employer-sponsored health care plans administered by the Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and affiliated entiti ...
Franco v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7886 (3d Cir. May 2, 2016): I. These consolidated appeals have three sets of Appellants. First, there are those Appellants who are participants in employer-sponsored health care plans administered…
Continue Reading

Abuse of Discretion — Limits of Discretion — Court May Not Do Whatever It Pleases — Party’s Wealth Irrelevant (Good Quotes)

Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 1984): [W]hen we say that a decision is discretionary, or that a district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion, we do not mean that the district court may do whatever pleases it. ... The fact that a party is a corporation, or is thought to be rich, or both, is and must be ...
Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968, 970 (8th Cir. 1984): [W]hen we say that a decision is discretionary, or that a district court has discretion to grant or deny a motion, we do not mean that the district…
Continue Reading

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
Previous165166167168169170171Next

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