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

Appellate Review of Decisions under Rule 56(h) (Bad Faith Affidavit on Summary Judgment) = Abuse of Discretion

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015): In this copyright case, Washington Shoe Company1 seeks reversal of the District Court's summary judgment ruling that Olem Shoe Corporation did not willfully infringe its copyrights. By its cross-appeal, Olem seeks reversal of the Court ...
Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 434 (11th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015): In this copyright case, Washington Shoe Company1 seeks reversal of the District Court's summary judgment ruling that Olem Shoe Corporation did not willfully…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Party’s Financial Condition as Reflected in Its 10-K Retrieved from EDGAR Considered on Irreparable Harm Prong of Preliminary Injunction Application

Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. N. Am Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re All Matters Related to N. Am. Refractories Co.), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 4191 (Bankr. Dec. 16, 2015): Presently before the Court for decision following an extensive hearing, briefing, and argument is the Motion for Preliminary Injunct ...
Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. N. Am Refractories Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re All Matters Related to N. Am. Refractories Co.), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 4191 (Bankr. Dec. 16, 2015): Presently before the Court for decision following an extensive hearing,…
Continue Reading

District Court Cannot Grant Untimely Motion under Rule 59 — Circuit Split As to Whether Court May Consider an Amendment to a Timely Filed Motion After the Period Set Forth in Rule 59 — 59(e), 52(b) Factors — 59 vs. 60 Depends on Timing

Segundo v. Stephens, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163432 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2015): On July 13, 2015, petitioner Juan Ramon Meza Segundo filed his "Motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a) to Amend and Correct Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Relief." (Mot. to Amend, doc. 55.) The certifica ...
Segundo v. Stephens, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163432 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2015): On July 13, 2015, petitioner Juan Ramon Meza Segundo filed his "Motion under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(a) to Amend and Correct Memorandum Opinion…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Striking Answer for Filing False Third Party Decl. on a Motion OK Even If Adversary’s Case Not Decimated; Prejudice = Prying Info. from Deceitful Person (Good Quote) — Party Can’t Complain of No Hearing When It Didn’t Depose

Forsberg v. Pefanis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21402 (11th Cir. Dec. 11, 2015): After Evangelina Forsberg sued James Pefanis, her boss, for inappropriately touching her and making lewd comments in front of a coworker, Pefanis filed in his defense a false statement purportedly from that coworker. Pefanis later pleaded guilty to cons ...
Forsberg v. Pefanis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21402 (11th Cir. Dec. 11, 2015): After Evangelina Forsberg sued James Pefanis, her boss, for inappropriately touching her and making lewd comments in front of a coworker, Pefanis filed in his defense a …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Arbitration — Clause Incorporating State Law Barring Class Arbitration Void under FAA — State Law Can’t Treat Arbitration Contracts Different from Others — What State Law, If Any, Can Drafters Effectively Designate?

DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7999 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2015): The Federal Arbitration Act states that a "written provision" in a contract providing for "settle[ment] by arbitration" of "a controversy . . . arising out of" that "contract . . . shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save ...
DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7999 (U.S. Dec. 14, 2015): The Federal Arbitration Act states that a "written provision" in a contract providing for "settle[ment] by arbitration" of "a controversy . . . arising out of" that "contract…
Continue Reading

Privilege — Crime-Fraud — Materials Must Be Intended to Further C/F — Intent vs. Effect — Violation of Ethics Waives Privilege Only As to Materials Generated by Violation — Overzealous Discovery Conduct ≠ Misconduct Waiving Privilege

In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159721 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2015): This multi-district litigation proceeding ("MDL"), familiarity with which is presumed, relates to highly publicized defects in certain General Motors branded vehicles and associated vehicle recalls. Before the Court is Plaintiffs' ...
In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159721 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 25, 2015): This multi-district litigation proceeding ("MDL"), familiarity with which is presumed, relates to highly publicized defects in certain General Motors branded vehicles and associated vehicle…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — No Adverse Inference from, Evidence of or Argument Concerning Assertion of Privilege Permitted

In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163255 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015): In its Ninth Motion in Limine, New GM asks the Court to rule that evidence or argument regarding [*383]  New GM's privilege assertions is inadmissible, and to enter an order governing privilege issues at trial. Plaintiff c ...
In re GM LLC Ignition Switch Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163255 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2015): In its Ninth Motion in Limine, New GM asks the Court to rule that evidence or argument regarding [*383]  New GM's privilege assertions is …
Continue Reading

RICO — No Open- or Closed-End Continuity Stated by Alleged Eight-Month Scheme with Single Victim (Good Collection of Similar Cases)

Grubbs v. Sheakley Grp., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21146 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2015): Plaintiffs Linda Grubbs and the companies she owns, Tri-Serve, Ltd.; TriServe #1, LLC; and Capital Concepts, Inc., appeal the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' claims under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and the Racketeer Influe ...
Grubbs v. Sheakley Grp., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21146 (6th Cir. Dec. 7, 2015): Plaintiffs Linda Grubbs and the companies she owns, Tri-Serve, Ltd.; TriServe #1, LLC; and Capital Concepts, Inc., appeal the order of the district court dismissing…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — When Does Inactivity Multiply Litigation? — Lawyers Entitled to Time to Digest New, Adverse Information — “Losing Is Part of the Lawyer’s Lot” & Not, Alone, Sanctionable (Good Quote)

Baca v. Berry, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015): This case arises out of an award of attorneys' fees imposed as a sanction on attorneys who brought a voting-rights lawsuit against the Mayor of Albuquerque. After dismissing the case, the district court found the attorneys unreasonably multiplied ...
Baca v. Berry, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 20830 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 2015): This case arises out of an award of attorneys' fees imposed as a sanction on attorneys who brought a voting-rights lawsuit against the Mayor of Albuquerque.…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Require (1) Prior Judicial Warning Claims Are Frivolous and (2) Awareness by Pro Se of Ample Authority Holding Squarely against Him or Her — § 1927 Available against Pro Se?

Simmons v. Methodist Hosp. of Dallas, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015): After Methodist Hospital terminated him, Jason Simmons brought an employment discrimination lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment, and Simmons did not appeal. Two years later, Simmons brought a second lawsuit against Methodist ...
Simmons v. Methodist Hosp. of Dallas, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21505 (5th Cir. Dec. 10, 2015): After Methodist Hospital terminated him, Jason Simmons brought an employment discrimination lawsuit. The district court granted summary judgment, and Simmons did not appeal. Two…
Continue Reading
Previous181182183184185186187Next

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