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

RICO — Fraud-Based Conspiracy Must Meet 9(b) — Can’t Create Specificity by “Page-Number Shock & Awe” — Mere Hint of Tribal Law Doesn’t Defeat Fed. Jur. — One Person’s Nefarious Acts Don’t Define Enterprise (Good Quotes)

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Cypress, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22518 (11th Cir. Dec. 22, 2015): Plaintiff Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the "Tribe") appeals from two orders and a final judgment in a fraud-and-embezzlement-related RICO suit against former tribal officials, several attorneys, a law firm, and in ...
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Cypress, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22518 (11th Cir. Dec. 22, 2015): Plaintiff Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the "Tribe") appeals from two orders and a final judgment in a fraud-and-embezzlement-related RICO suit…
Continue Reading

Email Admissibility — Hearsay — State of Mind Exception — There Is No “Self-Serving” Objection

Brown v. Golden State Foods Corps., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 371 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2015): Anthony Brown appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Golden State Foods Corporation (GSF) on Brown's claims of disability discrimination, retaliatory discharge, and failure to provide rest or meal breaks. Br ...
Brown v. Golden State Foods Corps., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 371 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2015): Anthony Brown appeals from the trial court's order granting summary judgment to Golden State Foods Corporation (GSF) on Brown's claims of disability discrimination,…
Continue Reading

No Mandamus to Review Order Compelling Fifth Amendment Materials in Tax Case — Post-Judgment Appeal Enough — Entertaining Opinion on Differing Approaches to Marijuana Industry Taken by DOJ (No Prosecution) & IRS (No Deductions)

Feinberg v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22161 (10th Cir. Dec. 18, 2015): This case owes its genesis to the mixed messages the federal government is sending these days about the distribution of marijuana. The Feinbergs and Ms. McDonald run Total Health Concepts, or THC, a not-so-subtly-named Colorado marijuana dispe ...
Feinberg v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 22161 (10th Cir. Dec. 18, 2015): This case owes its genesis to the mixed messages the federal government is sending these days about the distribution of marijuana. The Feinbergs…
Continue Reading

Facebook Evidence — New Hampshire Supreme Court Upholds Circumstantial Authentication Based on Defendant’s Access to iPad Used to Send Messages and the Messages’ Contents and Timing

State v. Palermo, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 130 (N.H. S.Ct. Dec. 18, 2015): Following a jury trial in Superior Court (Nicolosi, J.), the defendant, Christopher M. Palermo, was convicted on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, see RSA 632-A:2, I(i) (2007), one count of criminal trespass, see R ...
State v. Palermo, 2015 N.H. LEXIS 130 (N.H. S.Ct. Dec. 18, 2015): Following a jury trial in Superior Court (Nicolosi, J.), the defendant, Christopher M. Palermo, was convicted on one count of aggravated felonious sexual assault, see RSA 632-A:2, I(i)…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Incorporation of AAA Rules Does Not Render Availability of Class Arbitration a Matter for the Arbitrators Rather Than Court (Case Law But Not Circuit Split) — Does Incorporation Permit Class Arbitration? — Undecided Here

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 42 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016): In Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc., 761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1530, 191 L. Ed. 2d 558 (2015), we held that the availability of class arbitration constitutes a "ques ...
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout Petroleum, LLC, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 42 (3d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016): In Opalinski v. Robert Half International Inc., 761 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1530, 191 L. Ed. 2d …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Absence of Case Law Recognizing Constitutional Right Does Not Necessarily Render Claim Frivolous — Claim of Conspiracy with Gov’t Officials Falls Outside 1st Amend., Hence No Improper Purpose

Buckler v. MacGregor, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21613 (11th Cir. Dec. 15, 2015): The Druid Hills Civic Association, Inc. (DHCA) and Robert Bruce MacGregor, III, appeal the district court's [*2]  denial of their motions for sanctions and attorney's fees in Robert H. Buckler and H. Anthony McCullar's 42 U.S.C. ...
Buckler v. MacGregor, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21613 (11th Cir. Dec. 15, 2015): The Druid Hills Civic Association, Inc. (DHCA) and Robert Bruce MacGregor, III, appeal the district court's [*2]  denial of their motions for sanctions and attorney's fees in…
Continue Reading

If Defendant Stipulates to a Judgment for All Relief Plaintiff Seeks, Plaintiff Is Not Entitled to Trial on Issues That Wouldn’t Affect the Judgment — No Need to Use Rule 68 — Defendant May Disclaim Liability

Rienzi & Sons, Inc. v. N. Puglisi & F. Industria Paste Alimentari S.P.A., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19358 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015): The issue before the Court is whether entry of judgment is appropriate where a defendant has consented to judgment for all [*2]  the relief the plaintiff seeks at trial, but the pla ...
Rienzi & Sons, Inc. v. N. Puglisi & F. Industria Paste Alimentari S.P.A., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19358 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2015): The issue before the Court is whether entry of judgment is appropriate where a defendant has consented to…
Continue Reading

Rule 56(h) Sanctions — Willful Blindness = Bad Faith in Filing False Client Affid. on SJ — Withdrawing Claims from Overly Inclusive Complaint Doesn’t Warrant § 1927 or Inherent Power Sanctions —Good Quotes: Litigation ≠ Sport or Lottery

Jimenez v. City of NY, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165359 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2015): I. INTRODUCTION On September 24, 2015, this Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in this action brought under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code. Defendants now move for attorneys' fees under se ...
Jimenez v. City of NY, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165359 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2015): I. INTRODUCTION On September 24, 2015, this Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in this action brought under section 1983 of Title 42 of the…
Continue Reading

Removal — Is It Sufficient for One Defendant, in a Timely Notice of Removal, to Recite That All Co-Defendants Consent to Removal or Must Each of Them Separately Consent in Writing? — Circuit Split

Baldy v. First Niagara Pavilion, CCRL, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162123 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2015): B. The Circuit Split District [*13]  courts within the Third Circuit have recognized that "[u]nanimity may be expressed by defendants either jointly filing the notice of removal or consenting to the r ...
Baldy v. First Niagara Pavilion, CCRL, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162123 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2015): B. The Circuit Split District [*13]  courts within the Third Circuit have recognized that "[u]nanimity may be expressed by defendants either jointly filing …
Continue Reading

Securities — Scienter — May a Plaintiff Plead Collective Scienter against an Entity without Pleading Scienter against an Individual Associated with It? — Circuit Split

Sun v. Han, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170005 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2015): This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Mazars CPA Limited ("Mazars CPA" or "Defendant")'s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30, "Def s. Mov. Br.") Plaintiff Bin Qu's amended putative class action complaint ("Amended Com ...
Sun v. Han, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170005 (D.N.J. Dec. 21, 2015): This matter comes before the Court by way of Defendant Mazars CPA Limited ("Mazars CPA" or "Defendant")'s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 30, "Def s. Mov. Br.") Plaintiff…
Continue Reading
Previous180181182183184185186Next

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