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

Federal Court May Not Impose Sanctions for Misconduct Occurring in Prior State Court Action That Was Dismissed with Prejudice before Federal Action Was Filed

Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Centro Ecuestre Madrigal, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2016): Spending time astride an animal as magnificent, spirited, and powerful as a horse can be risky business. Unfortunately, Ángela Rivera-Carrasquillo experienced this first-hand when she was thrown from a horse in the midst of a gu ...
Rivera-Carrasquillo v. Centro Ecuestre Madrigal, Inc., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1180 (1st Cir. Jan. 25, 2016): Spending time astride an animal as magnificent, spirited, and powerful as a horse can be risky business. Unfortunately, Ángela Rivera-Carrasquillo experienced this first-hand when…
Continue Reading

Once Plaintiff Moves to Dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Case Is Effectively Over and Court May Not Attach Conditions — Rule Allows Forum-Shopping — Sanctions Should Not Be a Consequence of Dismissal Nor a Condition Placed on It

Bechuck v. Home Depot USA, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2633 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2016): Stephan Bechuck appeals an order dismissing, without prejudice, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("Home Depot"), and Advantage Sales & Marketing, L.L.C. ("ASM") and requiring that any suits that Bechuck refiles against those parties be brought in ...
Bechuck v. Home Depot USA, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2633 (5th Cir. Feb. 16, 2016): Stephan Bechuck appeals an order dismissing, without prejudice, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ("Home Depot"), and Advantage Sales & Marketing, L.L.C. ("ASM") and requiring that any…
Continue Reading

RICO: “Where There is a Single Scheme, Single Injury and Few Victims, It Will Be Virtually Impossible to State a RICO Claim” — Parsing Injury Doesn’t Multiply It (Good Quotes)

Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v. Papageorge, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17744 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 9, 2015): On July 29, 2013, appellant Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, filed a complaint in the district court raising nine claims arising out of an alleged conspiracy related to the financing of the purchase of a townhouse located in the District of Co ...
Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v. Papageorge, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17744 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 9, 2015): On July 29, 2013, appellant Eastern Savings Bank, FSB, filed a complaint in the district court raising nine claims arising out of an alleged …
Continue Reading

Is the Time Stamp on a Facebook Post Hearsay or the Non-Hearsay Product of a Scientific Process? — Issue Raised But Not Decided

Ellis v. Commonwealth of VA., 2016 Va. App. LEXIS 18 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016): A Hampton jury convicted Emanuel Dale Ellis of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of that robbery. Ellis wished to introduce into evidence at trial a photograph from his Facebook page with an accompanying timestamp. The trial judge, ...
Ellis v. Commonwealth of VA., 2016 Va. App. LEXIS 18 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2016): A Hampton jury convicted Emanuel Dale Ellis of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of that robbery. Ellis wished to introduce …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — State Agency (Department of Corrections) Policies as Reflected on Its Website

Dugas v. Wittrup, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3055 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2016): Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated by the State of Ohio at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brian Wittrup, Chief of the Bureau of Classification for the Ohio Department of Rehabil ...
Dugas v. Wittrup, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3055 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2016): Plaintiff, formerly incarcerated by the State of Ohio at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brian Wittrup, Chief of…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions for Failure for Weeks to Respond to Messages Imploring Out of Court Resolution of Baseless Application Followed by Last-Minute Withdrawal Too Late to Avoid Hearing — Law Firm Vicariously Liable (Circuit Split)

MJS Las Croabas Props., Inc. v. FDIC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 498 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Feb. 17, 2016): Castellanos Group Law Firm, L.L.C. (the "Castellanos Firm") appeals from the following bankruptcy court orders: (1) the March 13, 2015 order imposing sanctions against the firm (the "March 2015 Order");2 and (2) ...
MJS Las Croabas Props., Inc. v. FDIC, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 498 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. Feb. 17, 2016): Castellanos Group Law Firm, L.L.C. (the "Castellanos Firm") appeals from the following bankruptcy court orders: (1) the March 13, 2015 order imposing sanctions…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Egregious Overstatement of Time in Fee Application Meets 11th Circuit’s Objective Recklessness Standard for Bad Faith — 85% Reduction of Requested Award Is a Reasonable Sanction

Reyes v. Aqua Life Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20462 (11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015): This matter arises out of several post-verdict motions filed by appellant Humberto Reyes ("Mr. Reyes") and appellee Aqua Life Corp. ("Aqua Life"), after a jury found in favor of Mr. Reyes in his suit to recover unpaid overtime wages und ...
Reyes v. Aqua Life Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20462 (11th Cir. Nov. 25, 2015): This matter arises out of several post-verdict motions filed by appellant Humberto Reyes ("Mr. Reyes") and appellee Aqua Life Corp. ("Aqua Life"), after a jury…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Injunction Barring Litigant Who Filed Three Attempts to Litigate Same Claims from Filing More without Notice to, and OK from, District Judge Upheld — Federal Court Can’t Decide Moot Issue — Equals Advisory Opinion (Good Quote)

Langermann v. Dubbin, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9200 (11th Cir. June 3, 2015): Robert Langermann brought this action alleging that the Defendants improperly denied him benefits he is due under a class action settlement. The district court dismissed his suit as barred by res judicata and denied his pending summary judgment motion as moot. < ...
Langermann v. Dubbin, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9200 (11th Cir. June 3, 2015): Robert Langermann brought this action alleging that the Defendants improperly denied him benefits he is due under a class action settlement. The district court dismissed his suit…
Continue Reading

Forum Non Conveniens — Russia Is an Adequate Alternative Forum for RICO Case, Despite Having No RICO Equivalent, Where Some Aspects of the Dispute Are Subject to Russian Law — Foreign Law Must Apply at Least in Part for FNC Transfer

Archangel Diamond Corp. v. OAO Lukoil, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2240 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2016): Plaintiff Archangel Diamond Corporation Liquidating Trust, as successor-in-interest to Archangel Diamond Corporation (collectively, "Archangel"), appeals the dismissal of its civil case against defendant OAO Lukoil ("Lukoil") ...
Archangel Diamond Corp. v. OAO Lukoil, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 2240 (10th Cir. Feb. 9, 2016): Plaintiff Archangel Diamond Corporation Liquidating Trust, as successor-in-interest to Archangel Diamond Corporation (collectively, "Archangel"), appeals the dismissal of its civil case against defendant OAO…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine Authenticated by Affidavit from Archive.com Office Manager

Stabile v. Paul Smith Ltd., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101291 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2015): Stabile stated during her January 13, 2015 deposition that Extrapolations # 3 has appeared on her website, but she could not remember when it appeared, and it does not appear there now. (Stabile Depo. 108:24-109:6.) Stabile states in h ...
Stabile v. Paul Smith Ltd., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101291 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2015): Stabile stated during her January 13, 2015 deposition that Extrapolations # 3 has appeared on her website, but she could not remember when it appeared, …
Continue Reading
Previous175176177178179180181Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

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

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