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

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

Comments Posted on YouTube Purporting to State When Video Was Shot = Hearsay, Inadequate to Authenticate Timing of Depicted Activities

Sublime v. Sublime Remembered, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103813 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2013): Plaintiffs Sublime and Floyd Gaugh IV filed this case in this Court on September 22, 2006. Sublime is a well-known popular music group, and Floyd Gaugh IV is a former member of Sublime. Plaintiffs brought this case seeking to enforce intellectual p ...
Sublime v. Sublime Remembered, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103813 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2013): Plaintiffs Sublime and Floyd Gaugh IV filed this case in this Court on September 22, 2006. Sublime is a well-known popular music group, and Floyd Gaugh…
Continue Reading

Hearsay & Privilege — Statement to Own Counsel Not against Penal Interest (Rule 804(b)(3)) Because Confidential — Residual Exception: Dismal Public View of Lawyers Makes Exclusion of Testimony Reasonable under 807(a)

United States v. Awer, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20700 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2014): A federal jury convicted Defendant Kent Awer of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute. He appeals.  Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I. The Facts A. The Malibu In th ...
United States v. Awer, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20700 (1st Cir. Oct. 29, 2014): A federal jury convicted Defendant Kent Awer of possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute. He appeals.  Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.…
Continue Reading
Previous219220221222223224225Next

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