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

Inherent Power Sanctions — Violation of Court Orders Constitutes Bad Faith

Sandifer v. Gusman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22277 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2015): Appellant John Courtney Wilson attempted to represent Plaintiff Kendrica Sandifer in multiple suits brought against members of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office. The district court denied Wilson's motion to enroll as co-counsel in the original s ...
Sandifer v. Gusman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22277 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2015): Appellant John Courtney Wilson attempted to represent Plaintiff Kendrica Sandifer in multiple suits brought against members of the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office. The district court denied …
Continue Reading

Appeals — Purely Conclusory Arguments Are Insufficient to Invoke Appellate Review and Are Disregarded — Award of Attorney’s Fees in Excess of Amount Recovered Upheld

Miller v. Wulf, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20866 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2015): Arthur S. Wulf, an Illinois attorney representing himself, appeals the district court's orders granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Miller v. Wulf, 84 F. Supp. 3d 1266 (D. Utah 2015), and denying his motion for sanctions. We affirm.< ...
Miller v. Wulf, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20866 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2015): Arthur S. Wulf, an Illinois attorney representing himself, appeals the district court's orders granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Miller v. Wulf, 84 F. Supp. 3d…
Continue Reading

Removal — Is There a Futility Exception to § 1447(c)’s Command That, If District Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over a Removed Action, “The Case Shall Be Remanded”? — Circuit Split

Sibley v. McConnell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138820 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2015): The text of the removal statute is unequivocal: it instructs that "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ...
Sibley v. McConnell, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138820 (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2015): The text of the removal statute is unequivocal: it instructs that "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — County Attorney’s Website = Official Record and Contents Fall within Hearsay Exception of Rule 803(8)

Shook v. Pitkin Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 911 (Colo. Ct. App. June 18, 2015): Footnote 4   The district court denied Shook's request to take judicial notice of the county attorney's website. However, Shook supplied a copy of the webpage ( http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Attorney-Pitki ...
Shook v. Pitkin Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2015 Colo. App. LEXIS 911 (Colo. Ct. App. June 18, 2015): Footnote 4   The district court denied Shook's request to take judicial notice of the county attorney's website. However, Shook supplied a …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Party’s Admissions in Prior Lawsuit in Same Court

Martin v. Duffy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175102 (D.S.C. Dec. 30, 2015): The plaintiff, Anthony Fred Martin, a self-represented state prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff is an inmate at ...
Martin v. Duffy, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175102 (D.S.C. Dec. 30, 2015): The plaintiff, Anthony Fred Martin, a self-represented state prisoner, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is before the court pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Legal Organization of Putative Entities from Government Party’s Website — Analysis May Encompass Notice of Any Party’s Website for This Purpose

Burris v. Nassau Cnty., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166428 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015): The Moving Defendants seek summary judgment as to all claims against Defendants Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County Sheriff's Department and Nassau County Corrections Department,3 arguing t ...
Burris v. Nassau Cnty., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166428 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2015): The Moving Defendants seek summary judgment as to all claims against Defendants Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County Sheriff's Department and Nassau County Corrections Department,3 arguing …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — Suspension/Disbarment Require Clear &Convincing Evidence of Bad Faith, Attorney’s Fees Don’t — Misrepresentation in Defending Partner and Firm in Sanctions Hearing Sanctioned

White v. Regional Adjustment Bureau, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1491 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2016) [updated opinion: 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7962] (Note: a related sanctions appeal is excerpted in the posting dated February 11, 2016; both raise the same jurisdictional issue that the Court of Appeals took the appeal before the attorneys' fees were set):
White v. Regional Adjustment Bureau, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1491 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2016) [updated opinion: 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 7962] (Note: a related sanctions appeal is excerpted in the posting dated February 11, 2016; both raise the same…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Appellate Jurisdiction over Inherent Power Suspension While Attorney’s Fees Unset — Independent Counsel to Pursue IP Sanction If Suspension, Disbarment Possible — Abuse of Discretion Review With a Careful Eye (Good Quote)

White v. Regional Adjustment Bur., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21023 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015): The underlying dispute in this case concerned claims under consumer protection statutes by Dr. Timothy White, represented by Noah Radbil, against Regional Adjustment Bureau, Inc. ("RAB"). However, this appeal concerns only sanctions ...
White v. Regional Adjustment Bur., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21023 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015): The underlying dispute in this case concerned claims under consumer protection statutes by Dr. Timothy White, represented by Noah Radbil, against Regional Adjustment Bureau,…
Continue Reading

Collateral Order Doctrine Does Not Permit Appeal of Denial of Motion to Dismiss on Ground Claims Belong in Another Forum (Here, Administrative) — Good Lists of Cases That Collateral Order Doctrine Does, and Does Not, Apply to

Fischer v. NY St. Dept. of Law, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1979 (2d Cir. Feb. 5, 2016): Plaintiff-appellee Carol Fischer is pursuing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York a claim against defendant-appellant, her former employer--whose proper name is the Division of Appeals and Opinions of the Offi ...
Fischer v. NY St. Dept. of Law, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1979 (2d Cir. Feb. 5, 2016): Plaintiff-appellee Carol Fischer is pursuing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York a claim against defendant-appellant, her …
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Printouts from Third Party, Private Websites (Here, Medical) = Inadmissible Hearsay and Are No Substitute for Expert Testimony on Causation

2. Defendants' Motion to Strike Printouts of Internet Websites [*12]  Hernandez v. Smith, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90740 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2015): This action is proceeding against Defendants Drs. R. D. Smith and L. Kirk for deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's serious medical needs in their treatment ...
2. Defendants' Motion to Strike Printouts of Internet Websites [*12]  Hernandez v. Smith, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90740 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2015): This action is proceeding against Defendants Drs. R. D. Smith and L. Kirk for deliberate indifference to…
Continue Reading
Previous176177178179180181182Next

Recent Posts

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

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.”

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