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

Sanctions for Failure to Disclose Insurance Coverage under Rule 26(a)(1) Not Waived If Not Raised in District Court — Rule 26(g)(3) Mandates Sanctions Sua Sponte for Breach of Disclosure Duty

Food Team Int’l, Ltd. v. Unilink, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23732 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2014): D. Rule 26 Sanctions The parties dispute whether the District Court should have sanctioned Defendants and their counsel for their failure to disclose Unilink's insurance policy. Rule 26(a) provides ...
Food Team Int’l, Ltd. v. Unilink, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23732 (3d Cir. Dec. 17, 2014): D. Rule 26 Sanctions The parties dispute whether the District Court should have sanctioned Defendants and their counsel for their failure to disclose …
Continue Reading

Email/Text — Text Messages on Cell Phone Found on Vehicle Occupied by Only One Person Sufficiently Tied to Person by Circumstantial Evidence (Contents of Messages) = Admissions, Declarations against Interest

Jiminez v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12737 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014): Appellant Martin Robeles Jimenez was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, with the intent to deliver. The jury imposed a punishment of fifteen years in prison ...
Jiminez v. State, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12737 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014): Appellant Martin Robeles Jimenez was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or more but less…
Continue Reading

Fact That Document Is Publicly Available Does Not Justify Failure to Disclose It under Rule 26(a)(1) to Provide Notice to Adversary — Failure to Disclose Leads to Preclusion under Rule 37(c)

Martino v. Kiewit New Mexico, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1457 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2015): I. Background This dispute arose out of a construction worksite accident in which Gomez, one of Kiewit's employees, ran over Martino with a "skid steer," a machine Gomez was using to excavate dirt. The constr ...
Martino v. Kiewit New Mexico, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1457 (5th Cir. Jan. 29, 2015): I. Background This dispute arose out of a construction worksite accident in which Gomez, one of Kiewit's employees, ran over Martino with a "skid steer," …
Continue Reading

Instagram — Testimony That Witness Downloaded Photo from Instagram and Third Party’s Cell = Sufficient Authentication Where Photo Clearly Showed Defendant — No Need for Expert Evidence as to Downloading Process

In re D.H., 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 867 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2015):     D.H. appeals from a judgment entered in a proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He contends (1) the juvenile court erred by admitting a photograph of a photograph that was on someone else's cell phone, and which was also posted o ...
In re D.H., 2015 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 867 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2015):     D.H. appeals from a judgment entered in a proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He contends (1) the juvenile court erred by admitting…
Continue Reading

Rule 68 — Circuit Split as to Validity of Unapportioned Offer of Judgment to Multiple Plaintiffs — Where Offer Doesn’t Break Out Statutorily Awardable Fees, Judgment = Reasonable Fees + Verdict — Are Fees Available for Nominal Verdict?

Doe v. Rutherford Cnty., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13200 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2015): Following a jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts other than plaintiff Jane Doe's Title IX retaliation claim. Pending before the court are several post-trial motions and related requests for costs, including the ...
Doe v. Rutherford Cnty., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13200 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2015): Following a jury trial, the jury entered a verdict in favor of the defendant on all counts other than plaintiff Jane Doe's Title IX retaliation claim.…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions on Client for Legally Frivolous Claims Reversed Even Though Issue First Raised on Appeal — Counsel’s Conflict below Excuses Untimely Assertion — Reassertion of Previously Dismissed Claims Sanctionable

Mitchel v. City of Santa Rosa, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1348 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2015): The district court did not err by concluding that the identified claims were legally unfounded and therefore sanctionable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). These claims attempted to re-litigate, without modification, conte ...
Mitchel v. City of Santa Rosa, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1348 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2015): The district court did not err by concluding that the identified claims were legally unfounded and therefore sanctionable. See Fed. R. Civ. P.…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — State Correctional Records Reflecting Inmate’s Risk Classification

Dugas v. Wittrup, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10962 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2015): Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brian Wittrup, Chief of the Bureau of Classification for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation a ...
Dugas v. Wittrup, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10962 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2015): Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution ("CCI"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Brian Wittrup, Chief of the Bureau of…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine Printouts Not Authenticated Absent Certification from Representative of Archive.Org

Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11312 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015): Box points to three pieces of evidence to establish that Ploeger's website was indexed and therefore publicly accessible: (1) Ploeger's deposition testimony; (2) what purports to be a printout of page from the Wayback Machine's Inte ...
Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11312 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015): Box points to three pieces of evidence to establish that Ploeger's website was indexed and therefore publicly accessible: (1) Ploeger's deposition testimony; (2) what …
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction: Does the Domestic Relations Exception Apply Only to Cases Brought under Diversity Jurisdiction Or to All Cases over Which Federal Courts Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction? Circuit Split

Edelglass v. State of N.J., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5320 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2015): The domestic relations [*24]  exception to federal diversity jurisdiction was first raised in Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 16 L. Ed. 226 (1859). In 1992, the Supreme Court explained that the domestic relations exception, ...
Edelglass v. State of N.J., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5320 (D.N.J. Jan. 16, 2015): The domestic relations [*24]  exception to federal diversity jurisdiction was first raised in Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582, 16 L. Ed. 226 (1859). In 1992, …
Continue Reading

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
Previous217218219220221222223Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice