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

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

Sanctions — Summary Judgment Granting Inherent Power Sanctions Reversed — Factual Issues as to Whether There Was Bad Faith or Willful Misconduct Required Evidentiary Hearing — Improper to Make Factual Findings on SJ Where Facts Disputed

Konop v. BMK Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11772 (9th Cir. July 8, 2015): Robert Konop appeals the district court's order affirming in part and vacating in part the bankruptcy court's award of sanctions against him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1), see Congrejo Invs., LLC v. Mann  ( ...
Konop v. BMK Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11772 (9th Cir. July 8, 2015): Robert Konop appeals the district court's order affirming in part and vacating in part the bankruptcy court's award of sanctions against him. We have…
Continue Reading

Text Authentication by Absence of Messages at Times Alleged Sender Is Indisposed, Name & Phone Number on Messages, Consistency of Content with Events in Alleged Sender’s Life

Matter of Detention of H.N., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1433 (Wash. Ct. App. July 6, 2015): H.N. appeals the order committing her to involuntary treatment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted as substantive evidence e-mailed screenshots of text messages that a medical expert used as part of her opinion testimony. ...
Matter of Detention of H.N., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 1433 (Wash. Ct. App. July 6, 2015): H.N. appeals the order committing her to involuntary treatment. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted as substantive evidence e-mailed…
Continue Reading

Privilege — Common Interest/Joint Defense — Existing Litigation Unnecessary — Party Asserting Privilege Need Not Put Forward Evidence Establishing the Details of a Joint Legal Strategy

Hanwha Azdel, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9602 (4th Cir. June 9, 2015): Finally, Azdel appeals the [*39]  district court's denial of Azdel's motion to compel certain Crane documents that the district court deemed protected under the common interest privilege. We review factual findi ...
Hanwha Azdel, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9602 (4th Cir. June 9, 2015): Finally, Azdel appeals the [*39]  district court's denial of Azdel's motion to compel certain Crane documents that the district court deemed protected under…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — If Preclusion of Evidence in Practice Amounts to Dismissal of Claim, Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault, and Other Prerequisites to Dismissal, Must Be Found

Toyrrific v. Karapetian, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9170 (9th Cir. June 2, 2015): 2. However, the district court erred as a matter of law by excluding the damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1). See R & R Sails, 673 F.3d at 1247. Here, excluding damages evidence was fatal to Toyrrific's claim. Appellees moved for summary ...
Toyrrific v. Karapetian, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9170 (9th Cir. June 2, 2015): 2. However, the district court erred as a matter of law by excluding the damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1). See R & R Sails, 673 F.3d at…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power/§ 1927 Sanctions for Refusal to Sign Settlement & Prolonging Case — Attorney’s Fees Not Barred by Contract Provision — Abuse of Discretion (10th Cir.) — Good Quotes (Incl. Party’s “Diatribe”) — No Recusal for Judge’s Anger

Farmer v. Banco Popular of N. Am., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11273 (10th Cir. June 30, 2015): This matter was previously before the Court on Plaintiff George Farmer's appeal from a district court order, in the nature of a mandatory injunction, directing Farmer to perform under the terms of a settlement agreement he reached with ...
Farmer v. Banco Popular of N. Am., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11273 (10th Cir. June 30, 2015): This matter was previously before the Court on Plaintiff George Farmer's appeal from a district court order, in the nature of a mandatory …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Suspension from Practice = “Nonmonetary” Sanction within 11(c)(4) — Bankruptcy Court Can Suspend — “Typical Federal Court Disposes of Hundreds of Cases Each Year—A Bankruptcy Court Disposes of Thousands” — Honesty Essential

In re Young (Young v Young), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10158 (8th Cir. June 17, 2015): The bankruptcy court sanctioned attorney Kathy Cruz under Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure during her representation of a client, Jonathan Young. Cruz appeals the imposition of sanctions. For the reasons stated belo ...
In re Young (Young v Young), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10158 (8th Cir. June 17, 2015): The bankruptcy court sanctioned attorney Kathy Cruz under Rule 9011 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure during her representation of a client, Jonathan …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Sloppy Argument and Overstatement ≠ Misrepresentation or Litigation Misconduct Punishable under Rule 11 and Form No Basis for Finding Patent Case Not Exceptional within 35 U.S.C. § 285

Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10736 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2015): Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc. ("CSZ"), the prevailing party in this patent infringement case, appeals the district court's denial of attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In holding that this was not ...
Gaymar Indus., Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Prods., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10736 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2015): Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc. ("CSZ"), the prevailing party in this patent infringement case, appeals the district court's denial of attorney's fees under…
Continue Reading

Linked In Admissibility — Hearsay — Defendant’s Self-Description of Title on Own LinkedIn Page when Offered by Plaintiff Admitted Insofar As It Reflects Defendant’s Description of Role But Not for Truth That Defendant Actually Held Position

Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81415 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015): This case arises out of a cyber attack on the global computer network and communication systems of Plaintiff Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Limited ("Music Group" or "Plaintiff"). Plaintiff asse ...
Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81415 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015): This case arises out of a cyber attack on the global computer network and communication systems of Plaintiff Music Group Macao Commercial …
Continue Reading
Previous198199200201202203204Next

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