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

While Lower Court Must Execute Mandate of Higher Court – Including Questions Expressly Or Impliedly Decided – Invalidity of Prospective Waiver of Statutory Remedies for Public Policy Reasons It May Reopen a Seemingly Foreclosed Issue Based on New Evidence, A Dramatic Change in Law or a Blatant Error in the Prior Decision That Will Result in a Serious Injustice (Here, Previously Undetected Fraud on The Court Preceding Appeal) – “Affiliated Entity” May Refer to an Individual – Does Contractual Phrase “Tribal Law” Incorporate Federal Law? – District Court’s Credibility Determinations Deserve The Highest Degree of Appellate Deference

Williams v Martorello, 59 F.4th 68 (4th Cir. 2023): This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior factual findings based on a new finding that Martorello made misrepresentations that substantially impacted the litiga ...
Williams v Martorello, 59 F.4th 68 (4th Cir. 2023): This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior factual findings based…
Continue Reading

During Pendency of Appeal, District Court Retains Jurisdiction to Enforce — But Not Alter — Unstayed Orders (Here, Imposing Financial Sanction for Contempt for Discovery Misconduct)

Micula v. Gov't of Romania, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished): Per Curiam *1 This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the briefs of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a publishe ...
Micula v. Gov’t of Romania, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished): Per Curiam *1 This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the…
Continue Reading

Can FRAP 28(j) Be Used to Inform Court of Appeals of Pertinent Factual Developments Arising During the Appeal?

Medtronic Medical CR SRL v. Fliciano-Soto, 59 F.4th 51 (1st Cir. 2023): This appeal asks us to weigh in on the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint filed below by Appellant, Medtronic Medical CR SRL (“Medtronic”). We write primarily for the parties, assuming their familiarity with the facts underlying Medtronic’s complaint, the district court’s ...
Medtronic Medical CR SRL v. Fliciano-Soto, 59 F.4th 51 (1st Cir. 2023): This appeal asks us to weigh in on the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint filed below by Appellant, Medtronic Medical CR SRL (“Medtronic”). We…
Continue Reading

RICO § 1964(c): Where Federal and State Law Conflict, State Law Does Not Control in Determining Whether Plaintiff Suffered Injury to Business Or Property for RICO Purposes

Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023) *407 The question presented in this case is whether Appellants, a cannabis entrepreneur and two cannabis businesses, have standing to bring claims arising pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023) *407 The question presented in this case is whether Appellants, a cannabis entrepreneur and two cannabis businesses, have standing to bring claims arising pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 – Unequivocal Request to Withdraw Action Without Prejudice Within 21 Days of Motion Satisfies Safe Harbor, Even If Action Not Formally Dismissed Until After 21-Day Period Has Expired – No Requirement to Agree to Dismiss With Prejudice

Thompson v. Steinberg, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2023) (unpublished): Key Takeaways: We generally review a decision resolving a motion for
Thompson v. Steinberg, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2023) (unpublished): Key Takeaways: We generally review a decision resolving a motion for Rule 11 sanctions for abuse discretion. …. However, within that framework, we review de novo …
Continue Reading

Merely Not Following Through With Notice To File Rule 11 Motion Is An Insufficient Basis on Which to Conclude That The Threat Was Meritless — But It Is Some Evidence

Pocket Plus, LLC v. Pike Brands, LLC, 53 F.4th 425 (8th Cir. 2022): *1 Pocket Plus, LLC, sued Pike Brands, LLC (“Running Buddy”) for trade-dress infringement of Pocket Plus’s portable pouch. The district court1 granted summary judgment to Running Buddy and awarded it a portion of its requested attorne ...
Pocket Plus, LLC v. Pike Brands, LLC, 53 F.4th 425 (8th Cir. 2022): *1 Pocket Plus, LLC, sued Pike Brands, LLC (“Running Buddy”) for trade-dress infringement of Pocket Plus’s portable pouch. The district court1 granted summary judgment to Running…
Continue Reading

Spoliation – Rule 37(e) – Even If Document Retention Policy Violated, Additional Evidence of Bad Faith May Be Required for an Adverse Inference Instruction

Lear Corp. v. NHK Seating of Am. Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212542, 2022 WL 17176836 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2022): OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANTS' [*2]  MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BASED ON LEAR'S SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE [280]
Lear Corp. v. NHK Seating of Am. Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212542, 2022 WL 17176836 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2022): OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANTS’ [*2]  MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BASED ON LEAR’S SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE [280] Lear…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power: Does the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Apply to the Inherent Power to Sanction or Only to the Inherent Power to Vacate a Judgment for Fraud on the Court? — Only the Latter in the Sixth Circuit

Jaiyeola v. Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2022 WL 18401018 (6th Cir. 2022) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola, a pro se California resident, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions against two defense attorneys. Jaiyeola has filed two motions asking this court take judicial notice that he is suing a third defe ...
Jaiyeola v. Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2022 WL 18401018 (6th Cir. 2022) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola, a pro se California resident, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions against two defense attorneys. Jaiyeola has…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — “Intent” for purposes of Rule 37(e)(2) Is Satisfied If It Is Reasonable to Infer That the Alleged Spoliator Purposefully destroyed evidence to Avoid Its Litigation Obligations

Estate of Moreno v. Corr. Healthcare Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108370, 2020 WL 5740265 (E.D. Wash. June 1, 2020): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS'
Estate of Moreno v. Corr. Healthcare Cos., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108370, 2020 WL 5740265 (E.D. Wash. June 1, 2020): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 37(e) MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Rule 37(e) Motion…
Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Joins Seventh in Holding That The Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Third-Party Non-Lawyer (Here, Ex-Lawyer) Engaged in The Unauthorized Practice of Law

United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023) (unpublished): *1 Following a trial by jury, Defendant Elmer Jones appeals his conviction on four counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation of
United States v. Jones, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3317 (6th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023) (unpublished): *1 Following a trial by jury, Defendant Elmer Jones appeals his conviction on four counts of possession with intent to distribute controlled substances in violation…
Continue Reading
Previous16171819202122Next

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Victim vs. Perpetrator Enterprises — (2) § 1962(b): Elements of a Violation — (3) Meaning of “Interest” and “Control” in § 1962(b) — (4) The Defendant in a § 1962(b) Action Need Not Be an Enterprise; The Victim Must Be An Enterprise — (5) Acquisition/Maintenance Injury Required (6) Aiding and Abetting Liability under RICO

Rule 11 Sanctions: Request for Bill of Particulars re Sanctions Proceeding Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Court’s Discretion Narrows As Severity of Sanction Increases OR When It Initiates the Sanction Proceeding Itself — Particularly Strict Abuse of Discretion Standard Applied — “Rule 11 Does Not License a District Court to Sanction Any Action by an Attorney or Party That It Disapproves of” (Good Quote) — Failure to Provide Identify Specific Pleading and Detail Specific, Objectionable Conduct within that Pleading Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That Most Severe Sanction May Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Failure to Provide Notice That “Scarlett Letter Sanction” (Mandatory Circulation of Sanctions Order) Or Other Sanction That Could Leave Indelible Imprint on Career Might Be Imposed Violates Due Process — Notice That Law Firm Might Be Sanctioned Insufficient to Afford Notice to Firm Lawyer and Managing Partner That He Might Be Sanctioned — Refusal to Impose Additional Sanction Until Impact of Other Imposed Penalties (Not Sanctions) Ascertained to See Whether Sanction Needed

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: (1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion Even When It Results in Summary Judgment — (2) Whether Physicians Must File 26(a)(2)(B) Report Depends on Whether They Formed Their Opinions for Litigation Or in the Course of Medical Treatment — (3) Party Seeking to Avoid Exclusion of Its Expert for Noncompliance with Rule 26 Bears Burden of Showing Harmlessness or Substantial Justification — (4) Expert Report Subject to Exclusion If It Is Conclusory and Does Not Meet the Level of Rigor Required by Rule 26(a)(2)(B)

RICO: The Statute Defines Enterprise Broadly, “But That Breadth Is Not Without Limit” (Good Quote) — Enterprise Inadequately Pled Where Plaintiffs Fail to Name the Common Purpose, Explain How the Relationships Among the Defendants Allowed Them to Advance That Purpose, Or Specify the Period of Time Sufficient to Achieve That Purpose — In a Particular Case, the Pattern of Racketeering May Be Sufficient to Infer the Existence of an Association-in-Fact Enterprise, But Pattern Does Not Necessarily Establish Enterprise — A RICO Conspiracy May Exist Regardless of Whether the Substantive RICO Violation Is Consummated, But the Substantive Violation Must Be Adequately Pled

RICO: (1) Claim Accrued When Plaintiff Suffered, and Was Aware of, Her Injury — Overt Retaliation in Her Employment As A Result of Reporting Another Employee’s Sexual Misconduct — Not When a Report Confirming that Misconduct Later Became Public; (2) Inhouse Lawyer’s Conclusion No Sexual Misconduct Occurred Is a Mere Expression of a Legal Conclusion, Not Deception Warranting SOL Reprieve Due to Equitable Tolling or Fraudulent Concealment — Plaintiff Exhibited Lack of Diligence in Failing to Consult Own Counsel or Challenge Inhouse Counsel’s Conclusion; (3) Causation: Plaintiff Must Prove Her Injuries Were Directly Caused by the Predicate Acts — (4) Concealment of Report Commissioned by Employer Directly Harmed Employer (by Exposing It to Liability) and Victims of Sexual Misconduct, and Only Indirectly Harmed Plaintiff Who Suffered Retaliation in Her Employment for Reporting the Misconduct

RICO: Without Injury to Business or Property, Injury Resulting from RICO Violation Is Not Actionable under RICO — Meaning of “Property” in § 1964(c) — Meaning of “Business” in § 1964(c) — Mere “Expectancy Interests” ≠ Business or Property — Loss of NCAA Eligibility = Loss of a Status, Not Loss of Property — Pecuniary Losses (Here, Attorney’s Fees) Flowing from a Non-Cognizable Injury Are Not Recoverably via RICO

RICO: Enterprise Not Sufficiently Distinct from Defendant Where Enterprise Allegedly Consisted of the Defendant Corporation, Corporate Employees, Their Counsel and “Friends”

FRAP 38 Sanctions Should Not Lightly Be Awarded on the Ground That an Incorrect Argument Was Frivolous — “An Appeal Can Be Weak, Indeed Almost Hopeless, Without Being Frivolous” (Good Quote) — There Must Be “No Legitimate Basis for Pursuing the Appeal” (Good Quote)

Severe Emotional Distress and Trauma ≠ RICO Injury — Parents’ Voluntary Financial Support of Adult Daughter Who Was Forced to Sign Over Her Annuity in Violation of RICO Not Proximately Caused by RICO Violation — Injury Is Derivative, Not Direct (Intimation of Different Result if Financial Support Required by Law) — RICO Injury Is Requirement for Statutory Standing (12(b)(6) Issue), Not Constitutional Standing (12(b)(1) Issue)

RICO — Neither Filing a Complaint Nor Issuing a Press Release Constitutes Wire Fraud — Litigation Privilege Is Absolute and Bars All Tort Claims Other Than Malicious Prosecution — Abuse of Process Claim Barred (California Law)

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