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

Sanctions — No Appellate Jurisdiction Where Appealed Order Didn’t Include Amount and Subsequent Order Not Appealed From — Substantial Degree of Frivolousness Required for FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigant

McCavey v. Gold, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15761 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): William M. McCavey, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint filed against nine defendants involved in varying degrees with his state divorce action, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Georgia state law. ***
McCavey v. Gold, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15761 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): William M. McCavey, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint filed against nine defendants involved in varying degrees with his state divorce action,…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence Taken on 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss without Converting It into a Summary Judgment Motion — Newspaper Website — Article Stating Date Official (a Defendant) Appointed to Office

Jones v. Chapman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96964 (D. Md. July 24, 2015): This case arises from allegations of police brutality in connection with the untimely death of Tyrone A. West, Sr. ("Mr. West" or the "Decedent") on July 18, 2013.1 Tawanda Jones, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Tyrone A. W ...
Jones v. Chapman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96964 (D. Md. July 24, 2015): This case arises from allegations of police brutality in connection with the untimely death of Tyrone A. West, Sr. ("Mr. West" or the "Decedent") on July 18,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Safe Harbor Triggered by Motion, Not Brief, Declarations — Motion Must Give Sufficient Notice of Conduct at Issue — Discovery re Sanctions only in Extraordinary Circumstances; No Trial Required (Good Quotes)

Burbidge Mitchell & Gross v. Peters, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14405 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015): This diversity case involves the tort of wrongful use of civil proceedings. The case was filed by the Utah law firm of Burbidge, Mitchell & Gross (BMG) against former client C&M Properties, LLC (C&M), which had sued BMG for legal malprac ...
Burbidge Mitchell & Gross v. Peters, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14405 (10th Cir. Aug. 17, 2015): This diversity case involves the tort of wrongful use of civil proceedings. The case was filed by the Utah law firm of Burbidge, Mitchell …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Rule 37 Dismissal Requires Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault — Fees Limited to Cost of Misconduct, Not Responding to Discovery — Extraordinary Circumstances Needed to Withdraw Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge

Odige v. Nat’l Mentor Healthcare, LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15831 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): In these consolidated appeals, Chuks Odigwe appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action as a discovery sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b). We have jurisdiction under ...
Odige v. Nat’l Mentor Healthcare, LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15831 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): In these consolidated appeals, Chuks Odigwe appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his employment discrimination action as a discovery sanction under…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Spoliation — Bad Faith as Well as Prejudice Required for Adverse Inference Instruction in Eleventh Circuit

Rives v. LaHood, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4838 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2015): We review a district court's decision regarding spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion. Mann, 588 F.3d at 1310. "[A] party moving for [spoliation] sanctions must establish, among other things, that the destroyed evide ...
Rives v. LaHood, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 4838 (11th Cir. Mar. 25, 2015): We review a district court's decision regarding spoliation sanctions for abuse of discretion. Mann, 588 F.3d at 1310. "[A] party moving for [spoliation] sanctions must establish, …
Continue Reading

Unethical or Illegal Conduct by Counsel Vitiates Work Product Protection — RICO: Awareness of Essential Nature and Scope of Enterprise, and Intent to Participate in It, Suffice for §1962(c)

United States v. Pellicano, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14961 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015): Six defendants appeal [*7]  their criminal convictions stemming from a widespread criminal enterprise offering illegal private investigation services in Southern California. At the center of this criminal enterprise was Pellicano Investigative Ag ...
United States v. Pellicano, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14961 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 2015): Six defendants appeal [*7]  their criminal convictions stemming from a widespread criminal enterprise offering illegal private investigation services in Southern California. At the center of this …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(2) Sanctions for Failure to Admit Per Rule 36 (Here, Lack of Legally Cognizable Injury) — Test: Reasonable Belief Responder Might Prevail on Matter Denied

Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Intamin, Ltd., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16310 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2015): III. Rule 37 Sanctions On cross-appeal, Intamin contends that the district court erred in denying its request for attorney's fees and costs under Rule 37. Intamin claims that Magnetar should be san ...
Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Intamin, Ltd., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16310 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2015): III. Rule 37 Sanctions On cross-appeal, Intamin contends that the district court erred in denying its request for attorney's fees and costs under Rule…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — While Duty to Preserve Isn’t Dependent on Preservation Letter, Where One Is Sent and Abided by, No Error to Deny Adverse Inference for Destroying Other Documents Per Customary Retention Policy (11th Cir. — Bad Faith Required)

Hill v Cundiff, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14101 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2015): These consolidated appeals involve student-on-student sexual harassment. Jane Doe, an eighth-grade student at Sparkman Middle School, was raped in a bathroom after school officials decided to use her as bait in a sting operation to catch CJC, another eighth-grade st ...
Hill v Cundiff, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14101 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2015): These consolidated appeals involve student-on-student sexual harassment. Jane Doe, an eighth-grade student at Sparkman Middle School, was raped in a bathroom after school officials decided to use…
Continue Reading

Mooting Claim by Offer of Judgment That Offers Plaintiff Complete Relief — Procedure under Rule 12(b)(1) Mirrors Summary Judgment Practice under Rule 56 — Plaintiff’s 26(a)(1) Damages Calculation May ≠ Full Post-Discovery Claim

Flores v. ACT Event Servs., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16773 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2015): 3. Mooting Claims Through Offers of Judgment a. Examples of Rule 12(b)(1) Motions Following Offers of Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides defendan ...
Flores v. ACT Event Servs., Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16773 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2015): 3. Mooting Claims Through Offers of Judgment a. Examples of Rule 12(b)(1) Motions Following Offers of Judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 provides …
Continue Reading

RICO — No Closed-Ended Continuity If Only One Victim, Even If Acts Committed over Long Period of Time — No Open-Ended If Scheme Has a Clear and Terminable Goal (Which, Here, Was Achieved)

Daedalus Capital LLC v. Vinecombe, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15808 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): Appellants Daedalus Capital, LLC (Daedalus) and Lockwood Technology Corporation (LTC) appeal the district court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees Bradford Vinecombe (Vinecombe), former president of LTC; Bruno Rieg ...
Daedalus Capital LLC v. Vinecombe, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15808 (11th Cir. Sept. 4, 2015): Appellants Daedalus Capital, LLC (Daedalus) and Lockwood Technology Corporation (LTC) appeal the district court's order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Appellees Bradford Vinecombe…
Continue Reading
Previous190191192193194195196Next

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