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

Anonymously-Authored Memorandum Posted on Facebook Excluded as “At Least Double Hearsay”

Monet v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2638 (Cal. Ct. App. April 16, 2015): Plaintiff Christopher Monet, individually and as trustee of the L & M Family Living Trust (hereafter jointly Monet), obtained a loan for $868,000 secured by a deed of trust on real property. Monet defaulted on his loan. After the property was ...
Monet v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2638 (Cal. Ct. App. April 16, 2015): Plaintiff Christopher Monet, individually and as trustee of the L & M Family Living Trust (hereafter jointly Monet), obtained a loan for…
Continue Reading

Hamas Website Authentication by Circumstantial Evidence: Governments’ Reliance on Site as Authentic, Language and Facts Posted, Exclusive Interviews with Nonpublic Personal Details, Official Seals / Watermarks — Website Video Authentication

Linde v Arab Bank, PLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45903 (E.D.N.Y. April 8, 2015): A. Authentication Generally Federal Rule of Evidence 901 "does not erect a particularly high hurdle" for authenticating evidence. United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). "[T]he standard for authentic ...
Linde v Arab Bank, PLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45903 (E.D.N.Y. April 8, 2015): A. Authentication Generally Federal Rule of Evidence 901 "does not erect a particularly high hurdle" for authenticating evidence. United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658…
Continue Reading

RICO — Dismissal for Untimeliness Unusual: Complaint Needn’t Anticipate/Defeat Affirmative Defenses — Waiver of Argument Not Presented Below: Nuances May Differ — No Equitable Tolling If No Investigation at All — Good Quotes

Sidney Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5974 (7th Cir. April 13, 2015): Appellants are a group of multi-employer benefit funds challenging the dismissal of their putative class action alleging that Abbott Laboratories, Inc., and its subdivision AbbVie, Inc. (collectively, "Abbott") ...
Sidney Hillman Health Ctr. of Rochester v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5974 (7th Cir. April 13, 2015): Appellants are a group of multi-employer benefit funds challenging the dismissal of their putative class action alleging that Abbott Laboratories,…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — May a Court Certify a Class to Resolve a Specific Issue when the Whole Cause of Action Isn’t Certifiable? Circuit Split

Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28881 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015): II.  Partial Certification Plaintiffs request, as an alternative to denying DirectSat's motion for decertification, that a class be certified as to liability issues pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pro ...
Jacks v. DirectSat USA, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28881 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2015): II.  Partial Certification Plaintiffs request, as an alternative to denying DirectSat's motion for decertification, that a class be certified as to liability issues pursuant to…
Continue Reading

Party’s Statements on Its Own Website Are Business Records and Admissions

CA, Inc. v. New Relic, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46438 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2015): In this patent infringement action, plaintiff CA, Inc. ("CA") alleges that defendant New Relic, Inc. ("New Relic") has infringed three patents which deal with monitoring the performance of software applications, otherwise known as app ...
CA, Inc. v. New Relic, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46438 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2015): In this patent infringement action, plaintiff CA, Inc. ("CA") alleges that defendant New Relic, Inc. ("New Relic") has infringed three patents which deal with monitoring…
Continue Reading

Texted Photographs — Authenticated by Testimony from Recipient Sufficient to Authenticate Text Exchange with Purported Sender Plus Testimony Exhibit Is a Fair and Accurate Depiction of Photo Received from Sender

Peña v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3710 (Tex. App. April 15, 2015): Tanya testified regarding her text message exchanges with an individual she knew as Alejandro Peña. The interaction between Tanya and Peña began accidently; Tanya sent a text message to a number that matched her friend's number, with the excep ...
Peña v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 3710 (Tex. App. April 15, 2015): Tanya testified regarding her text message exchanges with an individual she knew as Alejandro Peña. The interaction between Tanya and Peña began accidently; Tanya sent a text…
Continue Reading

Are the Costs of Demonstrative Exhibits Used with Experts Taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) as Exemplification Costs? Case Law Split

Geiss v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47841 (D.N.J. April 13, 2015): 1. Fees for exemplification under § 1920(4) Defendant seeks fees for the enlargement and mounting of Plaintiff's medical records and charts and diagrams used at trial that were admitted into evidence. It also seeks reimbur ...
Geiss v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47841 (D.N.J. April 13, 2015): 1. Fees for exemplification under § 1920(4) Defendant seeks fees for the enlargement and mounting of Plaintiff's medical records and charts and diagrams used at trial that…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Actual Notice by Email Doesn’t Satisfy Safe Harbor Requirements — Finding of Meritless, Alone, Insufficient Basis for 1927 or Inherent Power Sanctions

Chong v. Chang, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5381 (2d Cir. April 3, 2015): Michael K. Chong appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest 
Chong v. Chang, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5381 (2d Cir. April 3, 2015): Michael K. Chong appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest , J.), granting appellees' motion for …
Continue Reading

Email Authentication — Confirming Circumstances Beyond Sender’s Self-Identification Needed, Suffice to Authenticate Electronic Communications — Voicemails from Sender with Same Contents Plus The From Line of Email Suffice

Commonwealth v. Czubinski, 2015 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 191 (Mass. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2015): Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Theresa Czubinski, was convicted of one count of criminal harassment. She appeals, claiming error in the judge's reasonable doubt instruction and in the improper admission ...
Commonwealth v. Czubinski, 2015 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 191 (Mass. Ct. App. Mar. 16, 2015): Following a jury trial in the District Court, the defendant, Theresa Czubinski, was convicted of one count of criminal harassment. She appeals, claiming error in …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — No Judicial Notice of Website of Governmental Party Stating Fact Inconsistent With All Evidence before the Government Entity and Contrary to Its Own Findings of Fact (Website as Evidence Creator?)

Spokane Cnty. v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 755 (Wash. Ct. App. April 9, 2015): We address once again the compliance of Spokane County with Washington's intractable Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, this time in the context of a comprehensive plan amendment that rezoned a pa ...
Spokane Cnty. v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Board, 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 755 (Wash. Ct. App. April 9, 2015): We address once again the compliance of Spokane County with Washington's intractable Growth Management Act (GMA), chapter 36.70A RCW, this…
Continue Reading
Previous206207208209210211212Next

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