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

Supplemental vs. New Expert Report: If Report Asserts New Analysis Or Conclusions [Based on Information Available at Time of Original Report], It Is Not Supplemental within Rule 26(e)(2) — Rule 37(c)(1) and Rule 16(f) Exclusion: Four Factors (5th Circuit Test) — Sham Affidavit Doctrine Applies Only to Summary Judgment Affidavit That Contradicts Prior Deposition Testimony — Note: Court Fails to Address Rule 26(e)(1)(A) (Here, The New Opinion Was “Otherwise … Made Known to The Other Parties During The Discovery Process” Because It Was Inquired About At Deposition — See The Temptation to Depose Every Expert, 40 Litigation, No. 2 at 35 (Winter 2014)

Majestic Oil, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 2023 WL 2549892 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Majestic Oil, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, 2023 WL 2549892 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023) (unpublished): This is a first-party insurance case. Majestic Oil, Inc. asserts th ...
Majestic Oil, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2023 WL 2549892 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Majestic Oil, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2023 WL 2549892 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 2023) (unpublished): This is a…
Continue Reading

Recklessness Sufficient for § 1927 Sanctions in 9th Circuit (Circuit Split) — Mere Delay of 19 Days in Producing Prior Settlement Agreement Among the Parties “Unreasonably Lengthened the Proceedings” — Sound Dissent

Lozano v. Cabrera, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5394 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023) (2-1 decision; unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions under
Lozano v. Cabrera, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 5394 (9th Cir. Mar. 7, 2023) (2-1 decision; unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Because…
Continue Reading

While Lower Court Must Execute Mandate of Higher Court – Including Questions Expressly Or Impliedly Decided – Invalidity of Prospective Waiver of Statutory Remedies for Public Policy Reasons It May Reopen a Seemingly Foreclosed Issue Based on New Evidence, A Dramatic Change in Law or a Blatant Error in the Prior Decision That Will Result in a Serious Injustice (Here, Previously Undetected Fraud on The Court Preceding Appeal) – “Affiliated Entity” May Refer to an Individual – Does Contractual Phrase “Tribal Law” Incorporate Federal Law? – District Court’s Credibility Determinations Deserve The Highest Degree of Appellate Deference

Williams v Martorello, 59 F.4th 68 (4th Cir. 2023): This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior factual findings based on a new finding that Martorello made misrepresentations that substantially impacted the litiga ...
Williams v Martorello, 59 F.4th 68 (4th Cir. 2023): This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior factual findings based…
Continue Reading

During Pendency of Appeal, District Court Retains Jurisdiction to Enforce — But Not Alter — Unstayed Orders (Here, Imposing Financial Sanction for Contempt for Discovery Misconduct)

Micula v. Gov't of Romania, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished): Per Curiam *1 This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the briefs of the parties. The Court has afforded the issues full consideration and has determined that they do not warrant a publishe ...
Micula v. Gov’t of Romania, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished): Per Curiam *1 This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the…
Continue Reading

Can FRAP 28(j) Be Used to Inform Court of Appeals of Pertinent Factual Developments Arising During the Appeal?

Medtronic Medical CR SRL v. Fliciano-Soto, 59 F.4th 51 (1st Cir. 2023): This appeal asks us to weigh in on the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint filed below by Appellant, Medtronic Medical CR SRL (“Medtronic”). We write primarily for the parties, assuming their familiarity with the facts underlying Medtronic’s complaint, the district court’s ...
Medtronic Medical CR SRL v. Fliciano-Soto, 59 F.4th 51 (1st Cir. 2023): This appeal asks us to weigh in on the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of the complaint filed below by Appellant, Medtronic Medical CR SRL (“Medtronic”). We…
Continue Reading

RICO § 1964(c): Where Federal and State Law Conflict, State Law Does Not Control in Determining Whether Plaintiff Suffered Injury to Business Or Property for RICO Purposes

Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023) *407 The question presented in this case is whether Appellants, a cannabis entrepreneur and two cannabis businesses, have standing to bring claims arising pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023) *407 The question presented in this case is whether Appellants, a cannabis entrepreneur and two cannabis businesses, have standing to bring claims arising pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 – Unequivocal Request to Withdraw Action Without Prejudice Within 21 Days of Motion Satisfies Safe Harbor, Even If Action Not Formally Dismissed Until After 21-Day Period Has Expired – No Requirement to Agree to Dismiss With Prejudice

Thompson v. Steinberg, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2023) (unpublished): Key Takeaways: We generally review a decision resolving a motion for
Thompson v. Steinberg, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 1603 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2023) (unpublished): Key Takeaways: We generally review a decision resolving a motion for Rule 11 sanctions for abuse discretion. …. However, within that framework, we review de novo …
Continue Reading

Merely Not Following Through With Notice To File Rule 11 Motion Is An Insufficient Basis on Which to Conclude That The Threat Was Meritless — But It Is Some Evidence

Pocket Plus, LLC v. Pike Brands, LLC, 53 F.4th 425 (8th Cir. 2022): *1 Pocket Plus, LLC, sued Pike Brands, LLC (“Running Buddy”) for trade-dress infringement of Pocket Plus’s portable pouch. The district court1 granted summary judgment to Running Buddy and awarded it a portion of its requested attorne ...
Pocket Plus, LLC v. Pike Brands, LLC, 53 F.4th 425 (8th Cir. 2022): *1 Pocket Plus, LLC, sued Pike Brands, LLC (“Running Buddy”) for trade-dress infringement of Pocket Plus’s portable pouch. The district court1 granted summary judgment to Running…
Continue Reading

Spoliation – Rule 37(e) – Even If Document Retention Policy Violated, Additional Evidence of Bad Faith May Be Required for an Adverse Inference Instruction

Lear Corp. v. NHK Seating of Am. Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212542, 2022 WL 17176836 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2022): OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANTS' [*2]  MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BASED ON LEAR'S SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE [280]
Lear Corp. v. NHK Seating of Am. Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212542, 2022 WL 17176836 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 23, 2022): OPINION AND ORDER DENYING THE DEFENDANTS’ [*2]  MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BASED ON LEAR’S SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE [280] Lear…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power: Does the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Apply to the Inherent Power to Sanction or Only to the Inherent Power to Vacate a Judgment for Fraud on the Court? — Only the Latter in the Sixth Circuit

Jaiyeola v. Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2022 WL 18401018 (6th Cir. 2022) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola, a pro se California resident, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions against two defense attorneys. Jaiyeola has filed two motions asking this court take judicial notice that he is suing a third defe ...
Jaiyeola v. Toyota Motor N. Am., Inc., 2022 WL 18401018 (6th Cir. 2022) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Ganiyu Ayinla Jaiyeola, a pro se California resident, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for sanctions against two defense attorneys. Jaiyeola has…
Continue Reading
Previous18192021222324Next

Recent Posts

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.”

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

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