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 Require Bad Faith or Willful Disobedience of Order — Court Must Be Sure of Facts and Law on Which It Acts (Good Quote) — Contempt Immediately Appealable by Nonparty — Premature Notice of Appeal Takes Effect When Case Ends

Trade Well Int’l v. United Central Bank, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2100 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015): Maurice Salem, a member of the New York Bar, was admitted pro hac vice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in connection with some commercial litigation. Salem represents Trade Well International, a Paki ...
Trade Well Int’l v. United Central Bank, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 2100 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2015): Maurice Salem, a member of the New York Bar, was admitted pro hac vice in the U.S. District Court for the Western District…
Continue Reading

Punitive Damages — Constitutionality — Factors — Punitives in Excess of Compensatory Upheld for Defamation

Armstrong v. Shirvell, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1782 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2015): Andrew Shirvell, an alumnus of the University of Michigan and a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, engaged in an online and in-person "campaign" against Christopher Armstrong, the former president of the University of Michigan ...
Armstrong v. Shirvell, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1782 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2015): Andrew Shirvell, an alumnus of the University of Michigan and a former Assistant Attorney General for the State of Michigan, engaged in an online and in-person "campaign"…
Continue Reading

District Judge’s Recusal and Disqualification Decisions Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Quasi-Judicial Immunity Extends to Attorney Disciplinary (Grievance) Committees in New York

Neroni v. Coccoma, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1485 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015): Frederick J. Neroni appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights and denying his motion to recuse Judge Sharpe. *** A district judge ...
Neroni v. Coccoma, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1485 (2d Cir. Jan. 30, 2015): Frederick J. Neroni appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights and denying his…
Continue Reading

Waiver of Right to Compel Arbitration — Factors — The Key to a Waiver Analysis Is Prejudice (Good Quote) — Types of Prejudice: Substantive, Excessive Cost — No Waiver Absent Substantial Motion Practice or Discovery

Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 773 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015):   We review [*2]  a district court's decision regarding waiver of a party's right to arbitrate de novo. Thyssen, Inc. v. Calypso Shipping Corp., S.A., 310 F.3d 102, 104 (2d Cir. 2002). The appeal turn ...
Sutherland v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 773 (2d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015):   We review [*2]  a district court's decision regarding waiver of a party's right to arbitrate de novo. Thyssen, Inc. v. Calypso Shipping Corp., S.A.,…
Continue Reading

Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine Limited to Issues of First Impression or That Are Particularly Complicated and Committed to Agency Discretion, and If Protections of Regulatory Scheme Dictates Preliminary Resort to Agency — Factors

Alvarado v. Bay Area Credit Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5646 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015): "The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency." Clark v. Time Warner Cab ...
Alvarado v. Bay Area Credit Serv., LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5646 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2015): "The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within…
Continue Reading

First Amendment Bars Courts from Deciding Religious Questions, But Not Disputes Secular in Nature — RICO Claim Dependent on Resolution of Disputed Religious Question Precluded — Judicial Estoppel: Factors (Majority View)

Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 523 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015): This case publishes a new chapter in the legal struggle for control of Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. (Hutterville), a South Dakota religious nonprofit corporation whose members [*2]  have split into factions, mirroring a l ...
Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 523 (8th Cir. Jan. 13, 2015): This case publishes a new chapter in the legal struggle for control of Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. (Hutterville), a South Dakota religious nonprofit corporation …
Continue Reading

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
Previous181182183184185186187Next

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