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Sanctions — Appealability — Cunningham’s Bar of Interlocutory Review of Sanctions Orders, Including Those Sanctioning Withdrawn Counsel, Applies in Criminal as Well as Civil Cases

United States v. Haynes, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12354 (8th Cir. July 17, 2015): Teresa Lynette Bloodman withdrew as Laquan Darell Haynes's attorney in a criminal case. The magistrate judge ordered her to return discovery material "as soon as possible." She returned it thirty-four days later. The judge sanctioned he ...
United States v. Haynes, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12354 (8th Cir. July 17, 2015): Teresa Lynette Bloodman withdrew as Laquan Darell Haynes's attorney in a criminal case. The magistrate judge ordered her to return discovery material "as soon as possible." …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Inappropriate Ex Parte Factual Investigation by the Court vs. Sensible Recognition of Indisputable Facts

Jacko v. State, 2015 Alas. LEXIS 75 (Alaska Sup. Ct. July 17, 2015): I. INTRODUCTION Lake and Peninsula Borough voters passed an initiative prohibiting large-scale mining activities that have a "significant adverse impact" on anadromous waters within the Borough. Pebble Limited Partnership and [*2]  ...
Jacko v. State, 2015 Alas. LEXIS 75 (Alaska Sup. Ct. July 17, 2015): I. INTRODUCTION Lake and Peninsula Borough voters passed an initiative prohibiting large-scale mining activities that have a "significant adverse impact" on anadromous waters within the Borough. Pebble…
Continue Reading

Declaration Filed on Summary Judgment Is Work Product until Filed & Not a Discoverable “Document” But Contents Must Have Been Disclosed in Discovery

Chelan Cnty., Wash. v. Bank of Am., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89414 (E.D. Wash. July 9, 2015): II. Evidentiary Issues A. Motion to Strike Declaration Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration of Lisa Stensgaard as a sanction for Defendant's alleged violation of discovery obligations. EC ...
Chelan Cnty., Wash. v. Bank of Am., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89414 (E.D. Wash. July 9, 2015): II. Evidentiary Issues A. Motion to Strike Declaration Plaintiff moves to strike the declaration of Lisa Stensgaard as a sanction for Defendant's alleged…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Dismissal with Prejudice for Failure to Amend Complaint in Compliance with Judicial Instructions — Implicit Finding Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Suffice — Good Quotes on Need for Clear Pleadings, Seriousness of Filing Suit

Nurse v Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11912 (11th Cir. July 10, 2015): Ronald A. Nurse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint, which asserted 21 claims against the Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, Walden University, and two university em ...
Nurse v Sheraton Atlanta Hotel, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11912 (11th Cir. July 10, 2015): Ronald A. Nurse, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his amended complaint, which asserted 21 claims against the…
Continue Reading

Internet Chats — Party’s Statements Are Admissions and Unidentified Counterparties’ Statements Not Hearsay when Admitted to Provide Context for Party’s Statements

United States v. Beckman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12238 (6th Cir. July 13, 2015): III. Admission of Chats with Unidentified Individuals *** Beckman also claims that the chats with unidentified persons constituted inadmissible hearsay. But Beckman concedes he is jimmyab2010; thus hi ...
United States v. Beckman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12238 (6th Cir. July 13, 2015): III. Admission of Chats with Unidentified Individuals *** Beckman also claims that the chats with unidentified persons constituted inadmissible hearsay. But Beckman concedes he is jimmyab2010; …
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence & Residual Hearsay Exception — Reliability — Wikipedia (No), Blogs (Not These) — “Considering the Trustworthiness of a Document Cannot Be Punted when Analyzing Admissibility” (Good Quotes)

Kagen v. Kagen, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1385 (Mich. Ct. App. July 14, 2015):  We previously remanded this matter to the circuit court for reconsideration of whether securing vaccinations for the parties' minor children was in the children's best interests. Kagen v Kagen, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Co ...
Kagen v. Kagen, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1385 (Mich. Ct. App. July 14, 2015):  We previously remanded this matter to the circuit court for reconsideration of whether securing vaccinations for the parties' minor children was in the children's best interests. …
Continue Reading

Facebook Messages Authenticated by Testimony That Sender Gave Recipient His Screen Name; Icon on That Facebook Page Resembles Sender; and Messages’ Contents Describing Events Known to Both

J.B. v. State, 2015 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 736 (Ind. Ct. App. July 1, 2015): P1 J.B. appeals an adjudication that would constitute Theft, a class D felony,1 and Dangerous Possession of a Firearm, a class A misdemeanor2 if committed by an ...
J.B. v. State, 2015 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 736 (Ind. Ct. App. July 1, 2015): P1 J.B. appeals an adjudication that would constitute Theft, a class D felony,1 and Dangerous Possession of a Firearm, a class A misdemeanor2…
Continue Reading

Attorney’s Fees — Because Rule 54 Requires a Motion No Later Than 14 Days after Entry of Judgment, Motion May Be Filed Prior to Judgment — § 1927 Sanctions Require Conduct Akin to Bad Faith in 2d Circuit

16 Casa Duse, LLC v.Merkin, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11053 (2d Cir. June 29, 2015): V. Fees and Sanctions Merkin and Reichman argue that the district court made legal errors in awarding fees and costs to Casa Duse under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 505, and imposing sanctions against Reichman in the form of fees and costs under ...
16 Casa Duse, LLC v.Merkin, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11053 (2d Cir. June 29, 2015): V. Fees and Sanctions Merkin and Reichman argue that the district court made legal errors in awarding fees and costs to Casa Duse under the…
Continue Reading

Rule 12(g) Doesn’t Bar Defense Available on Earlier MTD If Court Didn’t Reach Merits — Failure to Perform Contract= RICO Injury — Corp + Subs ≠ Enterprise — Providing Services & Knowledge ≠ Operation & Mgmt. — Reliance, Good Quotes

In re Aetna UCR Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84600 (D.N.J. June 30, 2015): This matter comes before the Court on three separate motions: (1) plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint; (2) defendant Aetna's motion to dismiss the second and third amended consolidated complaint; and (3) the moti ...
In re Aetna UCR Litig., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84600 (D.N.J. June 30, 2015): This matter comes before the Court on three separate motions: (1) plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a third amended consolidated complaint; (2) defendant Aetna's motion…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Wayback Machine Credited over Party’s Submitted Evidence

Erickson v. Neb. Machinery Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87417 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015): In this copyright infringement suit, plaintiffs Jim Erickson and his production company allege that defendant Nebraska Machinery Company displayed ten of his photos on its website without permission. *** 1  
Erickson v. Neb. Machinery Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87417 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2015): In this copyright infringement suit, plaintiffs Jim Erickson and his production company allege that defendant Nebraska Machinery Company displayed ten of his photos on its…
Continue Reading
Previous197198199200201202203Next

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