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

Grupo Mexicano Inapt If Equitable Relief Sought — General Jurisdiction after Daimler — Specific Jurisdiction over Non-Parties — No Waiver of Defense That Didn’t Exist Below — Civil Contempt Can’t Be Punitive

Gucci Am., Inc. v. Bank of China¸ 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014): This case arises out of the legal efforts of a number of luxury goods retailers to protect their intellectual property and stop alleged counterfeiters from marketing fake merchandise over the Internet and then hiding the profits from the sale of their counterfeit ...
Gucci Am., Inc. v. Bank of China¸ 768 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2014): This case arises out of the legal efforts of a number of luxury goods retailers to protect their intellectual property and stop alleged counterfeiters from marketing fake …
Continue Reading

Friend vs. Facebook Friend — New Trial Denied Despite Juror’s Facebook Email to Witness Who Was a Facebook Friend — Facebook Friendships Often Exist Between People Who Are Indifferent to One Another (Good Quote)

State v. Smith, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 7, 2015) (this is an appeal on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court, whose opinion is excerpted in our blog post of March 25,2014): A jury convicted the defendant, William Darelle Smith, of first degree (premeditated) murder, and he was sentenced to life in pr ...
State v. Smith, 2015 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 7, 2015) (this is an appeal on remand from the Tennessee Supreme Court, whose opinion is excerpted in our blog post of March 25,2014): A jury…
Continue Reading

No Rule 37(c) Sanctions on Counsel — Fees for Time on Sanctions Motion and Fee App OK — Reasonable Fees: Court Looks to Lawyer’s Customary Rates, NLJ Survey; Rates OK’ed in Various SDNY Cases Listed — No Partner Rates for Associate Work

Pichardo v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10722 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015): Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. have moved for monetary sanctions against Jean Prabhu, Esq., the attorney who represents plaintiff Glenny Pichardo in this litigation. Pursuant to Rule 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro ...
Pichardo v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10722 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2015): Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. have moved for monetary sanctions against Jean Prabhu, Esq., the attorney who represents plaintiff Glenny Pichardo in…
Continue Reading

Text Authentication — Testimony That Child Called D “Godfather,” That Child’s Phone Id’d Texts as from Godfather, And That D Gave Child Phone Authenticate Texts as Sent by D (Who Didn’t Deny Sending) — Texts as 801(e) Admissions

Campos v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 230 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2015): The State called M.N., and, before she testified, the prosecutor informed the trial court that she would testify about text messages C.G.J. had received [*6]  from appellant. [M.N. was 10-year-old C.G.J.’s aunt, with whom he l ...
Campos v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 230 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2015): The State called M.N., and, before she testified, the prosecutor informed the trial court that she would testify about text messages C.G.J. had received [*6]  from …
Continue Reading

Internet Evidence — Chats May Be Admissible for Non-Hearsay Purposes of Showing State of Mind, Intent, Knowledge, Absence Mistake and Associating Owner with Material on His or Her Computer

United States v. DeFoggi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93198 (D. Neb. June 9, 2014): C. Motion in Limine DeFoggi's Motion in Limine seeks to prevent the government from referencing the "fantasy chat private messages sent to and from" particular usernames from Website A, arguing the messages are irrelevan ...
United States v. DeFoggi, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93198 (D. Neb. June 9, 2014): C. Motion in Limine DeFoggi's Motion in Limine seeks to prevent the government from referencing the "fantasy chat private messages sent to and from" particular usernames…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Optional Preclusion for Untimely Disclosure of Evidence — Offending Party May Not Offer It Initially, But Opponent May; If So, Offender May Then Use It, Too — Good Quote on Too Many Supposed Mistakes to Be Plausible

Bryntesen v. Camp Automotive, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7371 (D. Ida. Jan. 20, 2015): 2. Sanctions Defendants ask the Court to sanction Plaintiffs for late disclosure of three videos -- two videos of the arrest incident made by bystanders, and one video of Casey Bryntesen calling Scott Grumbl ...
Bryntesen v. Camp Automotive, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7371 (D. Ida. Jan. 20, 2015): 2. Sanctions Defendants ask the Court to sanction Plaintiffs for late disclosure of three videos — two videos of the arrest incident made by bystanders,…
Continue Reading

Expert Report Dictated to Counsel, Who Prepared and Signed It, Not Excluded — Counsel as Scrivener — Absence of Expert’s Signature Insufficient to Preclude Report or Testimony

Bryntesen v. Camp Automotive, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7371 (D. Ida. Jan. 20, 2015): 3. Expert James Bower Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires a party to disclose the identity of any expert witness. The disclosure "must be accompanied by a written report -- prepared and signed by t ...
Bryntesen v. Camp Automotive, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7371 (D. Ida. Jan. 20, 2015): 3. Expert James Bower Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) requires a party to disclose the identity of any expert witness. The disclosure "must be …
Continue Reading

Sales of Securities of U.S. Issuers by U.S. Market Makers = Domestic Transactions under Morrison — Point of Irrevocable Liability Is Key — OTCBB, Pink Sheets ≠ National Exchanges — Wire Fraud Statute Applies Extraterriorially

United States v. Georgiou, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 832 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015): A federal jury convicted Appellant George Georgiou ("Appellant" or "Georgiou") of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud for his participation in planned manipulation of the markets of four publicly traded stocks, resulting in more t ...
United States v. Georgiou, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 832 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2015): A federal jury convicted Appellant George Georgiou ("Appellant" or "Georgiou") of conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud for his participation in planned manipulation of the markets…
Continue Reading

Daubert — No Hearing Necessary Where Court Has Available Testimony from Same Witness on Nearly Identical Issue from Another Proceeding — No Need to Renew Objection at Trial If Court Issues Definitive Ruling on In Limine Motion

United States v. Rodriguez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 840 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2015): We have previously held that the overruling of a motion in limine does not preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal. United States v. Rutkowski, 814 F.2d 594, 598 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Rather, an objection at trial is req ...
United States v. Rodriguez, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 840 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2015): We have previously held that the overruling of a motion in limine does not preserve an evidentiary issue for appeal. United States v. Rutkowski, 814 F.2d…
Continue Reading

Appeals: To What Extent Is Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) Available As a Means of Providing Relief to Someone Who Missed the Appellate Deadlines in Rules 4(a)(1) and 4(a)(5) — I.e., As an End Around Bowles? Circuit Split

Tanner v. Yukins, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 837 (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2015): The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure establish the deadlines that govern filings in this court. See Fed R. App. P. 1(a)(1). When a party is properly notified of a judgment, Rule 4(a)(1)(A) provides the party with 30 days to appe ...
Tanner v. Yukins, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 837 (6th Cir. Jan. 20, 2015): The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure establish the deadlines that govern filings in this court. See Fed R. App. P. 1(a)(1). When a party is properly notified …
Continue Reading
Previous214215216217218219220Next

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