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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Wayback Machine

Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88068 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014): This case involves putative class action claims related to Defendant 23andMe, Inc.'s ("23andMe") advertising and marketing of its Personal Genome Service. 23andMe filed an Omnibus Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss or Alternatively ...
Tompkins v. 23andMe, Inc.,2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88068 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014): This case involves putative class action claims related to Defendant 23andMe, Inc.'s ("23andMe") advertising and marketing of its Personal Genome Service. 23andMe filed an Omnibus Motion to…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Stay vs. Dismissal of Action upon Granting of Motion to Compel (Circuit Split as to What FAA § 3 Mandates) — Dispositive Difference for Appellate Jurisdiction Purposes

Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11743 (9th Cir. June 23, 2014): This is a class action brought by plaintiff Fatemeh Johnmohammadi to recover unpaid overtime wages from defendant Bloomingdale's, Inc., her former employer. All of Johnmohammadi's claims arise under state law and are asserted on behal ...
Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11743 (9th Cir. June 23, 2014): This is a class action brought by plaintiff Fatemeh Johnmohammadi to recover unpaid overtime wages from defendant Bloomingdale's, Inc., her former employer. All of Johnmohammadi's claims…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine — Accuracy Cannot Reasonably Be Questioned — Judicial Notice Appropriate

The Pond Guy, Inc. v. Aquascape Designs, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85504 (E.D. Mich. June 24, 2014): Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing was held on this matter on May 29, 2014, which was continued to and completed on June 9, 2014. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DE ...
The Pond Guy, Inc. v. Aquascape Designs, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85504 (E.D. Mich. June 24, 2014): Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing was held on this matter on May 29, 2014,…
Continue Reading

Mediators Subject to Same § 455 Recusal Standards as Judges — Must Disclose a Potential Conflict Whenever Impartiality Might Reasonably Be Questioned — Liljeberg Standards Govern

CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11843 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2014): b. Rule 60(b)(6) Rule 60(b)(6) gives federal courts authority to relieve a party from a final judgment "upon such terms as are just." Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 863-64; see ...
CEATS, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11843 (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2014): b. Rule 60(b)(6) Rule 60(b)(6) gives federal courts authority to relieve a party from a final judgment "upon such terms as are just." Liljeberg,…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Sixth Circuit Standards — Relevance = More Than Rule 401 — Definition of Abuse of Discretion — Back-Up Tapes Used Only for Disaster Recovery May Be Recycled — Intentional Destruction after Duty Attaches Is Willful

Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11918 (6th Cir. June 25, 2014): "A federal court's inherent powers include broad discretion to craft proper sanctions for spoliated evidence." Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650, 651 (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (hereinafter, "Adkin ...
Automated Solutions Corp. v. Paragon Data Sys., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 11918 (6th Cir. June 25, 2014): "A federal court's inherent powers include broad discretion to craft proper sanctions for spoliated evidence." Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650, 651 (6th…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Prudential Standing Doctrine Largely Abandoned — Statutory Standing Label Misleading, Too

Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377; 188 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2014): This case requires us to decide whether respondent, Static Control Components, Inc., may sue petitioner, Lexmark International, Inc., for false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). I. Backgroun ...
Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377; 188 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2014): This case requires us to decide whether respondent, Static Control Components, Inc., may sue petitioner, Lexmark International, Inc., for false advertising under…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions May Not Be Awarded Based on Counsel’s “Misunderstanding, Bad Judgment, or Well-Intentioned Zeal” (Good Quote)

Morgan v. Covington Township, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7105 (3d Cir. April 16, 2014): 2   The Township seeks sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) as well as Rule 38. Sanctions under § 1927 may only be awarded upon "a finding that counsel's conduct resulted from bad faith, rather t ...
Morgan v. Covington Township, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7105 (3d Cir. April 16, 2014): 2   The Township seeks sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) as well as Rule 38. Sanctions under § 1927 may only …
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Rule 23(f) — If Damages Are So Huge That Defendants May Be Forced to Settle, Careful Consideration Given to Request to Appeal — Unethical for Plaintiff’s Counsel to Send Class Notice to Defendant to Enlist It as a Class Member

  Chapman v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5962 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014): The defendants in this class action suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, seek our leave to appeal from the district court's order certifying the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f). The defenda ...
Chapman v. Wagener Equities, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5962 (7th Cir. Mar. 31, 2014): The defendants in this class action suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, seek our leave to appeal from the district…
Continue Reading

Sua Sponte Rule 11 Sanctions — Second Circuit Standards — Seeking Extensions of Time to Respond to Summary Judgment Motion “Substantive[ly]” Sufficient to Support Finding of Bad Faith When No Substantive Response Ever Filed

Rankin v. City of Niagara Falls, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10903 (2d Cir. June 12, 2014): Appellant Christina A. Agola, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Arcara, J.; McCarthy, M.J.) imposing monetary sanctions and reprima ...
Rankin v. City of Niagara Falls, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 10903 (2d Cir. June 12, 2014): Appellant Christina A. Agola, an attorney proceeding pro se, appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Western District of…
Continue Reading

Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Illinois

People v. Diomedes, 2014 IL App (2d) 121080; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 403 (Ill. Ct. App. June 16, 2014): [*P1]  After a bench trial, defendant, Daniel T. Diomedes, was convicted of disorderly conduct for knowingly transmitting by e-mail a threat of violence directed against a high school dean. ... On September 27, 2012, ...
People v. Diomedes, 2014 IL App (2d) 121080; 2014 Ill. App. LEXIS 403 (Ill. Ct. App. June 16, 2014): [*P1]  After a bench trial, defendant, Daniel T. Diomedes, was convicted of disorderly conduct for knowingly transmitting by e-mail a threat…
Continue Reading
Previous235236237238239240241Next

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