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 — Do Federal Courts Have the Power to Impose Inherent Power Sanctions in Criminal Cases? — Undecided in Sixth Circuit — Vexatious Litigant Filing Restriction Requires Findings That Party Has Engaged in Repetitive, Frivolous Litigation — Federal Courts Lack Coram Nobis Jurisdiction Over a Criminal Defendant While the Defendant Is In Custody — A Deported Defendant Is Not In Custody, Even If Technically on Supervised Release, Which Typically Counts As “Custody”

United States v. Petlechkov, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16349, 2023 WL 4230905 (6th Cir. June 28, 2023):
United States v. Petlechkov, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16349, 2023 WL 4230905 (6th Cir. June 28, 2023):   *1 This is Dimitar Petlechkov’s third time before us. He now challenges the final forfeiture order entered in his criminal case…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power — Perils of Protective Orders: Fugitive Defendant Properly Denied Access to Confidential Discovery Materials Because, Having Removed Himself from The Jurisdiction of The District Court, The Court Could Not Enforce the Protective Order Against Him — Discovery Access Limitation Thus a Reasonable Exercise of the Court’s Inherent Authority to Protect Its Own Discovery Orders

United States SEC v. Iftikar A. Ahmed, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16310, 2023 WL 4219923 (2d Cir. June 28, ...
United States SEC v. Iftikar A. Ahmed, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16310, 2023 WL 4219923 (2d Cir. June 28, 2023):   *1 Defendant Iftikar Ahmed defrauded his former employer and its investors of some $65 million over the span…
Continue Reading

Authority of Appeals’ Court’s Grievance (Disciplinary) Panel Does Not Require That Merits Panels Refer All Sanctions Matters to Grievance Panel — Discipline and Sanctions Are Distinct Concepts

In re Atty. Griev. Complaint Filed by David Harris, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16307, *1, 2023 WL 4243254 (2d Cir. June 28, 2023): ORDER OF GRIEVANCE PANEL *1 David Ha ...
In re Atty. Griev. Complaint Filed by David Harris, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 16307, *1, 2023 WL 4243254 (2d Cir. June 28, 2023): ORDER OF GRIEVANCE PANEL *1 David Harris has submitted an attorney grievance complaint to this Court,…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Associational Standing — If Traditional 3-Part Test Is Satisfied, and the Organization Has Identified Members and Represents Them In Good Faith, Associational Standing Is Satisfied

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2791, 2023 WL 4239254 (U.S. June 29, 2023): Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. In these cases we consider whether the admissions systems used by Harvard ...
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2791, 2023 WL 4239254 (U.S. June 29, 2023): Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. In these cases we consider whether the admissions systems used by Harvard…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Corporation Subject to Suit (Personal Jurisdiction) in Any State in Which It Registers to Do Business If The Registration Statute Makes Consent to Suit A Condition of Registration (5-4) – However, The Concurring Fifth Justice Believes That Such Statutes May Violate The Dormant Conference Clause, And The 4-Justice Dissent Points Out That Few Registration Statutes Require Consent to Jurisdiction And Suit

Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2786, 2023 WL 4187749 (U.S. June 27, 2023) (5-4 opinion) Justices
Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2786, 2023 WL 4187749 (U.S. June 27, 2023) (5-4 opinion) Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined with respect to Parts I and III-B. Justices Thomas,…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: RICO – Domestic Injury Determined Contextually — Court Considers All Case-Specific Facts Bearing — Domestic Injury Exists When The Circumstances Surrounding The Injury Indicate It Arose In The United States — Issue Is Not Merely Where The Injury Is Felt — Other Factors: Whether Racketeering Activity Occurred in the United States, Whether Racketeering Activity That Occurred Abroad Was Initiated In Or Directed Toward The United States

Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2635, 2023 WL 4110234 (U.S. June 22, 2023): Respondent Vitaly Smagin holds a multimillion dollar California judgment against petitioner Ashot Yegiazaryan, who lives in California. Smagin, who ...
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2635, 2023 WL 4110234 (U.S. June 22, 2023): Respondent Vitaly Smagin holds a multimillion dollar California judgment against petitioner Ashot Yegiazaryan, who lives in California. Smagin, who resides in Russia, filed suit in…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Federal Arbitration Act – U.S. District Court Must Stay Its Proceedings While An Interlocutory Appeal On Arbitrability Is Pending

Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2636 (U.S. June 23, 2023): When a federal district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory appeal. See
Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2636 (U.S. June 23, 2023): When a federal district court denies a motion to compel arbitration, the losing party has a statutory right to an interlocutory appeal. See 9 U. S. C. …
Continue Reading

Affirmative Defense Properly Considered On Dismissal Motion If It Is Clear From The Face Of The Complaint And Matters Of Which The Court May Take Judicial Notice That The Claim Is Barred As A Matter Of Law

Lewis v. M&T Bank, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6596, 2022 WL 775758 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgm ...
Lewis v. M&T Bank, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 6596, 2022 WL 775758 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED…
Continue Reading

Claims Or Defenses Not Defended In Opposition To Dispositive Motion Are Abandoned — No Abuse Of Discretion To Deny Leave To Amend Where Request Is Conclusory And Requested Only In Brief

Farag v. XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7950 (2d Cir. April 4, 2023) (Unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of ...
Farag v. XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7950 (2d Cir. April 4, 2023) (Unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED…
Continue Reading

RICO: Because Cannabis Is Illegal Under Federal Law, Damage To It Is Not Injury To Business Or Property Within 18 USC 1964(c)

Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023): The question presented in this case is w ...
Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023): 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…
Continue Reading
Previous16171819202122Next

Recent Posts

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.”

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

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