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 — Failure to File Notice of Appeal in Counsel’s Name Precludes Appellate Review of Sanction Imposed on Counsel — Notice of Appeal in Party’s Name Inadequate to Permit Review

Kleehammer v. Monroe Cnty., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22110 (2d Cir. Nov. 21, 2014): Appellant Stephanie Kleehammer, proceeding pro se, appeals from (1) the district court's September 8, 2010 order dismissing in part her claims of employment discrimination; (2) the November 27, 2012 order granting summary judgment for defendants ...
Kleehammer v. Monroe Cnty., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22110 (2d Cir. Nov. 21, 2014): Appellant Stephanie Kleehammer, proceeding pro se, appeals from (1) the district court's September 8, 2010 order dismissing in part her claims of employment discrimination; (2) the …
Continue Reading

Unexplained Gap in Email Chain Defeats Circumstantial Authentication — YouTube Video Authentication Fails Absent Custodian Certification — Text Message Authentication Must Link Cell Numbers to Relevant Persons

Randaza v. Cox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (D. Nev. April 10, 2014): This cybersquatting case arises out of the alleged targeting of Plaintiffs Marc Randazza, his wife Jennifer, and their young daughter Natalia, by Defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger." The Randazzas allege that Cox and Defendant ...
Randaza v. Cox, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49762 (D. Nev. April 10, 2014): This cybersquatting case arises out of the alleged targeting of Plaintiffs Marc Randazza, his wife Jennifer, and their young daughter Natalia, by Defendant Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication Proved by Adversary’s Production + Failure to Claim Emails Inauthentic & by Appearance and Contents, Including Sender’s Professional Contact Info and Discussion of Non-Public Details Concerning Matter

Koules v. SP5 Atlantic Retail Ventures, LLC, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 825 (Ga. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2014): SP5 Atlantic Retail Ventures, LLC ("SP5") filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County against its tenant, The Dolce Group Atlanta, LLC ("Dolce"), and three guarantors, including Shereen Arazm Koules, for ...
Koules v. SP5 Atlantic Retail Ventures, LLC, 2014 Ga. App. LEXIS 825 (Ga. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2014): SP5 Atlantic Retail Ventures, LLC ("SP5") filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County against its tenant, The Dolce Group…
Continue Reading

Is the Identity of a Consulting Expert, Whose Knowledge and Opinions Are Generally Undiscoverable under Rule 26(b)(4)(D), Discoverable? — Case Law Split — Two Cases

Martensen v. Koch, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103165 (D. Colo. July 29, 2014): By its very terms, Rule 26(b)(4)(D) states that a party may not "discover facts known or opinions held" by a non-testifying expert,  but is silent on whether the "identity" of the non-testifying expert is also outside the bounds of d ...
Martensen v. Koch, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103165 (D. Colo. July 29, 2014): By its very terms, Rule 26(b)(4)(D) states that a party may not "discover facts known or opinions held" by a non-testifying expert,  but is silent on whether …
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Vexatious Litigant Injunction: 3-Part Test — Court Has Adjudicatory Power to Determine Its Jurisdiction Despite Rule 41(a) Dismissal and Error in Assuming It Had Jurisdiction — Contempt: Orders Must Be Obeyed until Reversed

Lundahl v. Halabi, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22994 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2014): Plaintiff Holli Lundahl filed a lawsuit in Wyoming that was removed to federal court. The district court scheduled a hearing to resolve disputed issues as to whether it had diversity jurisdiction, including whether Ms. Lundahl had fraudulently joined a fi ...
Lundahl v. Halabi, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22994 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2014): Plaintiff Holli Lundahl filed a lawsuit in Wyoming that was removed to federal court. The district court scheduled a hearing to resolve disputed issues as to whether …
Continue Reading

Email Evidence — Best Evidence Issues (Defamation Claim) — Court Has Discretion to Ignore Evidence Raised for First Time in Reply Brief (Good Quote)

Cellular Accessories For Less, Inc. v. Trinitas LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130518 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014):   Cellular alleges that Defendants "published one or more false statements which were intended to disparage CELLULAR ACCESSORIES's good and services." However, at the time motions for summary judgment were filed ...
Cellular Accessories For Less, Inc. v. Trinitas LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130518 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014):   Cellular alleges that Defendants "published one or more false statements which were intended to disparage CELLULAR ACCESSORIES's good and services." However, at…
Continue Reading

Experts — Supplemental Report Must Be Based on Additional or Corrected Info Unavailable when 1st Report Issued — Lack of Diligence by Counsel No Excuse for Lacking Info — Report Stating Additional Rationales & Opinions Not Supplemental

Curtis v. Crop Prod. Servs., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118005 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 25, 2014): This matter comes before the Court on a series of motions, triggered by the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Allow Kent Martin, Ph.D., to Submit a Supplemental Expert Report (Doc. No. 67). In response thereto Defe ...
Curtis v. Crop Prod. Servs., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118005 (W.D. Okla. Aug. 25, 2014): This matter comes before the Court on a series of motions, triggered by the filing of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Allow Kent Martin, …
Continue Reading

RICO, Reliance & Class Certification — In Financial Fraud Cases, Payment May = Circumstantial Proof of Reliance Sufficient to Show Predominance — RICO Extraterritoriality & Proximate Cause = Merits, Not Class, Issues — No Fraud on Market in RICO

CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Hutchens, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23043 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014): This case requires us to consider the certification of a proposed class action to pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). A class primarily composed of real estate borrowers ...
CGC Holding Co., LLC v. Hutchens, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 23043 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014): This case requires us to consider the certification of a proposed class action to pursue claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act…
Continue Reading

YouTube Video Authenticated by Circumstantial Evidence Identifying Individual and Items Depicted, and Establishing Where and Roughly When Video Recorded, without Evidence from YouTube Personnel

United States v. Broomfield, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2014): After a jury trial, James Franklin Broomfield, Jr. appeals his conviction and 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1). On appeal, Broomfield argues, inter alia, that the dis ...
United States v. Broomfield, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670 (11th Cir. Dec. 3, 2014): After a jury trial, James Franklin Broomfield, Jr. appeals his conviction and 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of…
Continue Reading

Does a Conflict between Members Defeat Associational Standing? — Circuit Split — Types of “Profound” Conflict — General Requirements for Associational Standing

Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techs., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131101 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2014): ANALYSIS Standing is a threshold subject matter jurisdictional requirement. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating standing. P ...
Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Techs., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131101 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2014): ANALYSIS Standing is a threshold subject matter jurisdictional requirement. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559-60 (1992). Plaintiff has…
Continue Reading
Previous218219220221222223224Next

Recent Posts

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

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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