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 11 — Failure to Issue Order to Show Cause Bars Sua Sponte Sanction — No Bad Faith Required in 6th Circuit for § 1927 Sanctions; Recklessness Enough, Even Absent “Conscious Impropriety”

Oakstone Community School v. Williams, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10143 (6th Cir. June 12, 2015): What began as a case about a child's education has needlessly devolved into a dispute about attorney's fees and unjustified sanctions. After prevailing in an administrative claim filed by the Defendant parent and her lawyer under the In ...
Oakstone Community School v. Williams, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10143 (6th Cir. June 12, 2015): What began as a case about a child's education has needlessly devolved into a dispute about attorney's fees and unjustified sanctions. After prevailing in an…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Bad Faith Required for Adverse Inference Instruction in Eleventh Circuit — Speculation Insufficient to Prove Bad Faith — Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Reference Book (Oxford English Dictionary)

Horton v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3033 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015): On the morning of March 18, 2011, plaintiff-appellant John Horton ("Plaintiff"), a longshoreman, was working aboard the M/V Sealand Champion when a crane operator, placing a shipping container onto a stack of other shipping containers, ...
Horton v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3033 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015): On the morning of March 18, 2011, plaintiff-appellant John Horton ("Plaintiff"), a longshoreman, was working aboard the M/V Sealand Champion when a crane operator, placing…
Continue Reading

Authentication of Entries in Cell Phone’s User Text Dictionary Requires Circumstantial Evidence That Owner Was the Person Who Entered the Words into His or Her Phone

Wilcock v. State, 2015 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 652 (Nev. Sup. Ct. May 29, 2015): This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon, one count of robbery with use of a deadly weapon, two counts of possession of stolen property, one count of burglary wh ...
Wilcock v. State, 2015 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 652 (Nev. Sup. Ct. May 29, 2015): This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of one count of first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon,…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Due Process — Failure to Grant Oral Argument = Abuse of Discretion Where Different Judges Presided over Case, Significant Sanction Imposed and Given Unspecified “Particulars of This Action”

Smith v. Banner Health Sys., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10191 (9th Cir. June 17, 2015): Smith appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Banner Health Systems and its employee Dr. Scott Elton (collectively "Banner"), and the order granting summary judgment in favor of the State of ...
Smith v. Banner Health Sys., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10191 (9th Cir. June 17, 2015): Smith appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Banner Health Systems and its employee Dr. Scott Elton (collectively "Banner"),…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Refiling Impertinent, Scandalous Allegations, Despite Warning, Violates 11(b)(1) — Refiling and Issuing Multiple Subpoenas Suggests Improper Purpose — No Rule 38 Sanctions If Chances Are Merely Slim

Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Govt., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9540 (5th Cir. June 8, 2015): Plaintiffs are fifteen current and former officers of the Lafayette Police Department suing the local government, the department, and other officers and city officials for numerous alleged violations of their constitutiona ...
Marceaux v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Govt., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9540 (5th Cir. June 8, 2015): Plaintiffs are fifteen current and former officers of the Lafayette Police Department suing the local government, the department, and other officers and city officials…
Continue Reading

1st Circuit: Bankruptcy Court Has Inherent Power to Sanction (Circuit Split) — Bad Faith Not Always Needed — Punitive Non-Contempt vs. Contempt — Factors in Evaluating Court’s Discretion in Imposing Sanctions

In re Charbono (Charbono v. Sumski), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10053 (1st Cir. June 15, 2015): This appeal poses the question of whether a bankruptcy court has inherent power to sanction parties for noncompliance with court orders. We hold that it does -- and we reject the debtor's attempt to subsume this power within the bankr ...
In re Charbono (Charbono v. Sumski), 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10053 (1st Cir. June 15, 2015): This appeal poses the question of whether a bankruptcy court has inherent power to sanction parties for noncompliance with court orders. We hold that …
Continue Reading

Authentication of Map of Locations Based on Cell Phone Signals to Towers — Expert Testimony re Technology Plus Circumstantial Evidence Linking Phones to Owners at Relevant Times — Use of Names vs. Phone Numbers on Exhibit Upheld

United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2015): Four masked men committed a string of robberies around Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia, in December 2012. During the third and final robbery, the thieves took $60,411.15 from a credit union. [**2]  They also unwittingly took three GPS tracking devices embedded in the cash ...
United States v. Reed, 780 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2015): Four masked men committed a string of robberies around Alexandria and Arlington, Virginia, in December 2012. During the third and final robbery, the thieves took $60,411.15 from a credit union. …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Appealability — Judicial Referral of Attorney Conduct to a Disciplinary Committee, Absent a Specific Finding of Misconduct by the Court, Is Not a Sanction and Is Not Appealable

Zente v. Credit Mgmt., LP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10063 (5th Cir. June 15, 2015): Albeit in the name of Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Zente, his attorney, Sergei Lemberg, appeals the district court's referral of his conduct to the disciplinary committee of the Western District of Texas. We conclude that neither Zente nor Lember ...
Zente v. Credit Mgmt., LP, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10063 (5th Cir. June 15, 2015): Albeit in the name of Plaintiff-Appellant Joseph Zente, his attorney, Sergei Lemberg, appeals the district court's referral of his conduct to the disciplinary committee of …
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Failure to Address Controlling Decision Issued Post-Filing/Pre-Dismissal Brief Warrants Sanctions — FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposable, But Denied, for Rehashing Arguments from Below without Addressing District Court’s Conclusions

Duncan v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10111 (11th Cir. June 16, 2015): Appellants Brendalynne and Tyrone Duncan appeal the district court's grants of motions to dismiss filed by Appellees Citimortgage, Inc., Pendergast & Associates, P.C., Howell A. Hall, and John F. Pendergast. Their attorney, Deirdre M. Stephens-John ...
Duncan v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10111 (11th Cir. June 16, 2015): Appellants Brendalynne and Tyrone Duncan appeal the district court's grants of motions to dismiss filed by Appellees Citimortgage, Inc., Pendergast & Associates, P.C., Howell A. Hall,…
Continue Reading

RICO & Res Judicata — Continuation of Same Activity at Issue in Prior Action Doesn’t Raise New or Independent RICO Claim — Test Isn’t Whether New Facts Occurred after Judgment But Whether Material Facts, Witnesses, Docs Are the Same in Both Suits

Foster v Denenberg, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9644 (3d Cir. June 10, 2015): Frederick Foster appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm. Foster filed suit in 2010 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against David ...
Foster v Denenberg, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9644 (3d Cir. June 10, 2015): Frederick Foster appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing his complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm. Foster filed suit in 2010…
Continue Reading
Previous199200201202203204205Next

Recent Posts

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

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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