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

Pro Se Plaintiff Cannot Bring Qui Tam Action Because U.S. Is Real Party in Interest and Pro Se Can’t Represent Another — Does FCA Allow Private Citizen to File RICO Claim on Behalf of Government?

Gunn v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6541 (3d Cir. April 1, 2015): In January 2013, Gunn filed a pro se qui tam action under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3730 et seq., on behalf of the United States.1 *** 1. The FCA makes it unlawful to knowingly submit ...
Gunn v. Credit Suisse Grp. AG, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 6541 (3d Cir. April 1, 2015): In January 2013, Gunn filed a pro se qui tam action under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. § 3730 et seq., on…
Continue Reading

Text Authentication — Party Possessed Phone, Witness Texted Phone Number, Witness’s Cell Ties Number to Party’s Name, Party Acted Per Earlier Texts, Witness Called Number 6 Hours after Texts & Party Answered — Affirmed on Other Grounds

People v. Sissac, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1504 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015): The San Diego County District Attorney charged Demetrius Sissac with first degree, special circumstance murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) in connection with the October 30, 2011 shooting of taxicab driver Jalaludin Hamrah, alleging that ...
People v. Sissac, 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1504 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 3, 2015): The San Diego County District Attorney charged Demetrius Sissac with first degree, special circumstance murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) in connection with the October …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Rule 37(b)(2) and Inherent Power — Default Judgment Requires Willfulness, Bad Faith or Fault, Not Inability to Comply

Klein v. Harper, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1839 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015): Under Rule 37(b)(2), "a district court may issue sanctions, including default judgment against the disobedient party when a party disobeys a discovery order." Klein-Becker USA, LLC v. Englert, 711 F.3d 1153, 1159 (10th Cir. 2013) ( ...
Klein v. Harper, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1839 (10th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015): Under Rule 37(b)(2), "a district court may issue sanctions, including default judgment against the disobedient party when a party disobeys a discovery order." Klein-Becker USA, LLC…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Adverse Inference Instruction Appropriate for Deactivation of Facebook Account Shortly after Initiating Lawsuit and Producing Only Substantially Illegible Printouts of Contents

Abeyta v City of N.Y., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23480 (2d Cir. Dec. 15, 2014): Plaintiff Andrew Abeyta appeals from the District Court's November 22, 2013 judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of defendants on his claims for false arrest, excessive force, and First Amendment retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state ...
Abeyta v City of N.Y., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23480 (2d Cir. Dec. 15, 2014): Plaintiff Andrew Abeyta appeals from the District Court's November 22, 2013 judgment, after a jury trial, in favor of defendants on his claims for false…
Continue Reading

YouTube Video of Defendant Rapping about Crimes Unfairly Prejudicial When Offered to Prove Intent or Motive to Participate in Different Sort of Crime Committed Many Months Later

People v. Foster, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1012 (Mich. Ct. App. May 19, 2015): Defendant, Tamaine Lamanual Foster, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b); armed robbery, MCL 750.529; being a felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f; possession of a firearm during the commissi ...
People v. Foster, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1012 (Mich. Ct. App. May 19, 2015): Defendant, Tamaine Lamanual Foster, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b); armed robbery, MCL 750.529; being a felon in…
Continue Reading

LinkedIn Authentication: Merely Downloading Ostensible Social Media Profile and Offering It, without More, Fails to Authenticate It, Which Also Renders Its Contents Hearsay

Lindschei v. Natus Med. Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40255 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2015): Plaintiffs [*14]  also object to the Court's consideration of exhibits attached to the declarations: a document purporting to be Plaintiff Blades's resume from Indeed.com (attached as Exhibit C to Rossi's declaration amd E ...
Lindschei v. Natus Med. Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40255 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 30, 2015): Plaintiffs [*14]  also object to the Court's consideration of exhibits attached to the declarations: a document purporting to be Plaintiff Blades's resume from Indeed.com (attached…
Continue Reading

Is the Cost of Bates Stamping Taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920? Circuit Split — Video Dep Fees Taxable If Incurred Close to Trial, for Unavailable Witnesses — Cost of Burning Docs onto Disk Taxable under 2008 Amendment

Azdel v C&D Zodiac, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39329 (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2015): a. Videographer Fees C&D first seeks costs for obtaining video recordings of the depositions of witnesses who could not be subpoenaed and would not voluntarily come to trial. C&D requested videotaped depositions for three necessary ...
Azdel v C&D Zodiac, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39329 (W.D. Va. Feb. 18, 2015): a. Videographer Fees C&D first seeks costs for obtaining video recordings of the depositions of witnesses who could not be subpoenaed and would not voluntarily…
Continue Reading

“Witnesses Cannot Refuse to Answer Questions Merely Because They Choose Not to — There Is No Opt-Out Box on a Subpoena” — Judicial Options, from Pillow to Sledgehammer — Judge Must Actually Exercise Discretion — Good Quotes

Barnett v. Norman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5145 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2015): Prisoner Troas Barnett appeals a jury verdict that rejected his pro se § 1983 claims of excessive force by prison guards. On appeal and now with assistance of counsel, Barnett contends that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting three prisoner-witness ...
Barnett v. Norman, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5145 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2015): Prisoner Troas Barnett appeals a jury verdict that rejected his pro se § 1983 claims of excessive force by prison guards. On appeal and now with assistance…
Continue Reading

Rule 804(b)(6) — Hearsay Exception — Forfeiture by Wrongdoing — Applies to Conspirator A Who Didn’t Directly Procure Witness’s Unavailability Where Conspirator B Did So in Course & Scope of Conspiracy and Misconduct Was Reasonably Foreseeable

United States v. Cazares, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7949 (9th Cir. May 14, 2015): A jury found defendants Fernando Cazares, Gilbert Saldana, Alejandro Martinez, and Porfirio Avila guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 by conspiring [*5]  to intimidate African-American citizens in the Highland Park neighborhood of ...
United States v. Cazares, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7949 (9th Cir. May 14, 2015): A jury found defendants Fernando Cazares, Gilbert Saldana, Alejandro Martinez, and Porfirio Avila guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241 by conspiring [*5]  to intimidate African-American…
Continue Reading

RICO — Municipal Entities Immune: Not Able to Form Mens Rea, Not Liable for Treble Damages (Which Are at Least Partly Punitive) — Fact of Loss, Not Loss of Legal Entitlement, Sufficient to Show Conclusive Enough Damages

Gil Ramirez Grp., LLC v. Houston Independent Sch. Dist., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8171 (5th Cir. May 18, 2015): This case, involving multiple causes of action based on allegations of bribery to procure construction contracts, was filed against Houston Independent School District ("HISD" or "the District"), form ...
Gil Ramirez Grp., LLC v. Houston Independent Sch. Dist., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8171 (5th Cir. May 18, 2015): This case, involving multiple causes of action based on allegations of bribery to procure construction contracts, was filed against Houston Independent …
Continue Reading
Previous202203204205206207208Next

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