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

Counsel Not Sanctionable under 37(c)(1) — Limits of Right to Rely on Inhouse Counsel for 26(a)(1) Disclosures — Due Process Failure Cured by Opportunity to Be Heard on Reconsideration, Where Court Didn’t Apply Heightened Standard of Review

Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Nelson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15645 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2015): James E. Pennington and Stephen E. Csajaghy, former counsel for plaintiff Sun River Energy, Inc. (Sun River) in the underlying proceedings, appeal from a judgment of the district court sanctioning them, jointly and severally, in the amount of $20,3 ...
Sun River Energy, Inc. v. Nelson, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15645 (10th Cir. Sept. 2, 2015): James E. Pennington and Stephen E. Csajaghy, former counsel for plaintiff Sun River Energy, Inc. (Sun River) in the underlying proceedings, appeal from a…
Continue Reading

Jury Trial — Improper Golden Rule Invocation — Fact vs. Legal Testimony by Lawyer — References to Rulings in Opening — Court Not Bound to Interrupt Argument Sua Sponte — Argument Must Be Quite Extreme to Warrant New Trial

Queen v. Schultz, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102169 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2015): The parties in this lawsuit first met in a hallway at an NBC television studio in January 2008, when the plaintiff, Michael Queen, approached Ed Schultz, the defendant. See May 13, 2015 Tr. at 13, ECF No. 169 (Testimony of Michael Queen). From all outward a ...
Queen v. Schultz, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102169 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2015): The parties in this lawsuit first met in a hallway at an NBC television studio in January 2008, when the plaintiff, Michael Queen, approached Ed Schultz, the defendant.…
Continue Reading

RICO — Mere Use of Traditional Customer Services Doesn’t Transform Non-Bank-Directed Misconduct into Bank Fraud (Good Quote) — Factually Pleading Intent to Defraud Essential to Stating Mail Fraud Predicate

H&Q Props., Inc. v. Doll, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12209 (8th Cir. July 15, 2015): Appellants H & Q Properties, Inc., John Quandahl, [*2]  and Mark Houlton (collectively, "H&Q") appeal the district court's1 dismissal of their claims and denial of their motion for leave to file a second amended co ...
H&Q Props., Inc. v. Doll, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12209 (8th Cir. July 15, 2015): Appellants H & Q Properties, Inc., John Quandahl, [*2]  and Mark Houlton (collectively, "H&Q") appeal the district court's1 dismissal of their claims and denial of…
Continue Reading

RICO Injury — Alleged Attempts to Intimidate and Interfere with Plaintiff’s Efforts to Litigate Claims for, and as Next Friend of, Incapacitated Individual Fail to State RICO Injury

Jones v. Griggs, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14323 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2015): In these two appeals (which we consolidate for disposition), Earl Key seeks to litigate claims on behalf of April Jones, who suffers from early-onset Huntington's disease and was adjudicated incompetent by state and federal courts. (Huntington&# ...
Jones v. Griggs, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14323 (7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2015): In these two appeals (which we consolidate for disposition), Earl Key seeks to litigate claims on behalf of April Jones, who suffers from early-onset Huntington's disease and …
Continue Reading

Not Quite Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence, But Considering It Nonetheless — 7th Circuit Debates Propriety of Appellate Internet Research Considered But Not Judicially Noticed in Overturning Summary Judgment

Rowe v. Gibson, 2015 WL 4934970 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2015) *1 An Indiana prison inmate named Jeffrey Rowe, the plaintiff in this suit under
Rowe v. Gibson, 2015 WL 4934970 (7th Cir. Aug. 19, 2015) *1 An Indiana prison inmate named Jeffrey Rowe, the plaintiff in this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, charges administrators and prison staff (actually employees of Corizon,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — When Due Process Requires Particularized Notice of Type & Severity of Sanction — Good Quotes on Reputation, Breadth & Limits of Discretion — Jones Day Deposition Sanctions Reversed (30(d)(2))

Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Abbott Labs., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15122 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015): Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, acting as conservator for minor J.M.K., brought this products liability action against Abbott Laboratories, alleging that Abbott's baby formula caused permanent brain damage to ...
Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Abbott Labs., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15122 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2015): Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, acting as conservator for minor J.M.K., brought this products liability action against Abbott…
Continue Reading

Line Between Civil & Criminal Contempt “Is Not Always Clear” — Non-Compensatory Sanctions Can’t Be Greater Than Needed to Ensure Compliance & Not So Excessive as to Be Punitive — Punitive Sanctions Require Callous Disregard (Good Quotes)

In re McLean (Green Point Credit, LLC v. McLean), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12736 (11th Cir. July 23, 2015): Green Point Credit, LLC and Green Tree Servicing LLC (collectively, "Green Tree") appeal the judgment the district court entered in its role as bankruptcy appellate court concerning an adversary proceeding that debtors Deb ...
In re McLean (Green Point Credit, LLC v. McLean), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12736 (11th Cir. July 23, 2015): Green Point Credit, LLC and Green Tree Servicing LLC (collectively, "Green Tree") appeal the judgment the district court entered in its…
Continue Reading

Email Evidence — Residual Exception (Rule 807) — Factors for Evaluating the Trustworthiness of a Statement

People v. Brown, 2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 2170 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014):  Defendant, Daryll Glenn Brown, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of first degree murder -- felony murder, second degree murder, and burglary. We affirm the judgment and remand the case for correction of the mittim ...
People v. Brown, 2014 Colo. App. LEXIS 2170 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2014):  Defendant, Daryll Glenn Brown, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of first degree murder — felony murder, second degree murder,…
Continue Reading

Email — Automatically-Generated Signature Block Satisfies UCC Statute of Frauds, Contractual Modification Provisions — Impact of Electric Signatures in Global Commerce Act (ESIGN Act)

Princeton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107722 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2015): The parties in this case entered into a contract calling for plaintiff, Princeton Industrial Metals ("Princeton") to supply certain machined parts for the defendant, Precision Metals Corp. ("PMC") to use ...
Princeton Indus. Prods., Inc. v. Precision Metals Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107722 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2015): The parties in this case entered into a contract calling for plaintiff, Princeton Industrial Metals ("Princeton") to supply certain machined parts for…
Continue Reading

No Sanctions under Rule 11 Where Both Sides Contributed to Frivolous Filings or under Inherent Power Where Bad Faith Not Shown

Buckhorn v. Orbis Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11409 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2015): Orbis Corporation and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (collectively, "Orbis"), the defendant and prevailing party in a patent infringement suit, seeks attorney's fees against Buckhorn, Inc. ("Buckhorn"), one of the plaintiffs in the inf ...
Buckhorn v. Orbis Corp., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11409 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2015): Orbis Corporation and Orbis Material Handling, Inc. (collectively, "Orbis"), the defendant and prevailing party in a patent infringement suit, seeks attorney's fees against Buckhorn, Inc. ("Buckhorn"),…
Continue Reading
Previous193194195196197198199Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

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

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