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

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

YouTube Admissibility — Admission of Defendant’s Words in Video, However Accomplished, Violates Crawford Confrontation

State v. Patton, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1783 (Ohio Ct. App. May 15, 2015): [*P1]  Daurin Patton, appeals a December 10, 2012 judgment of conviction and sentence of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of aggravated murder with two accompanying firearms specifications and one count of aggravated robbery. The aggravated m ...
State v. Patton, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 1783 (Ohio Ct. App. May 15, 2015): [*P1]  Daurin Patton, appeals a December 10, 2012 judgment of conviction and sentence of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas on two counts of aggravated…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions Affirmed for Issuing Trial Subpoena after Court Has Precluded Deposition of Same Apex Witness and While Motion to Compel Witness’s Attendance at Trial Is Pending

Wagner v. Gallup, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9856 (8th Cir. June 12, 2015): Rodd Wagner appeals various district court decisions, the sum total of which limited matters of discovery, imposed sanctions on Wagner's attorney and ultimately dismissed Wagner's age discrimination and appropriation claims. We affirm. I ...
Wagner v. Gallup, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9856 (8th Cir. June 12, 2015): Rodd Wagner appeals various district court decisions, the sum total of which limited matters of discovery, imposed sanctions on Wagner's attorney and ultimately dismissed Wagner's age…
Continue Reading
Previous200201202203204205206Next

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