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

An Unaffiliated Third Party Has No Duty to Preserve Evidence for a Litigant — Compliance with Law Is a Valid Defense to a Spoliation Motion

Brown v. Nolen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35917 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished): JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board and on the briefs and or ...
Brown v. Nolen, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 35917 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 29, 2022) (unpublished): JUDGMENT This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board and on the briefs and oral argument of the parties.…
Continue Reading

$500 Sanction Under Rule 16(f)(1) Does Not Require Full Criminal Contempt Procedures, Goodyear Notwithstanding — Due Process Failure If Sanctions Imposed For Reasons Not Set Forth in Order to Show Cause — Rule 16(f) Does Not Authorize Sanctions for Lack of Candor, Unlike Rule 11

Banks v. Whambo! Enter., LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31400, 2022 WL 16918023 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished) Key Takeaways:  “Taibi’s reliance on
Banks v. Whambo! Enter., LLC, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 31400, 2022 WL 16918023 (9th Cir. Nov. 14, 2022) (unpublished) Key Takeaways:  “Taibi’s reliance on Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017), is misplaced. …
Continue Reading

Even If Parties Share a Discovery Vendor, the Producing Party Bears the Burden of Ensuring That Its Directions to the Vendor Are Complete And Accurate — The Producing Party Must Certify Its Responses and Production under Rule 26(g)

Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226203 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022): Key Takeaways Rule 26(g)(1) requires, among other things, that every discovery response or objection "must be signe ...
Am. Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Blasingim, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226203 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2022): Key Takeaways Rule 26(g)(1) requires, among other things, that every discovery response or objection “must be signed by at least one attorney of record.” …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 sanctions must flow from the discovery violation

ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34765, 2022 WL 17725736 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022): Key Takeaway: “The district court’s award inappropriately includes in the sanction the timely disclosed RFID tags, for which there was no discovery violation and no established harm to ADASA. Cf.
ADASA Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34765, 2022 WL 17725736 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 16, 2022): Key Takeaway: “The district court’s award inappropriately includes in the sanction the timely disclosed RFID tags, for which there was no …
Continue Reading

The Gibson Dunn Sanctions Case — Key Takeaways and Full Opinion

In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023): "The organization has 'a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)( ...
In re Facebook, Inc. Consumer Priv. User Profile Litig., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22328 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2023): “The organization has ‘a duty to make a conscientious, good-faith effort to designate knowledgeable persons for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to …
Continue Reading

§ 1447(c) Sanctions: No Bad Faith Required; Abuse of Discretion Review — Evidence on Sanctions Motions: Rule 408 Does Not Bar Consideration of Settlement Discussions to Prove Bad Faith in Connection with a Sanctions Proceeding (Here, Relevant to Size of Sanctions Award) — Adequate Opportunity to Be Heard Afforded by Allowing Supplemental Briefing

Powell v. Healy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25776, 2022 WL 4181717 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellee Charlie A. Powell, a Tennessee hip hop artist manager, filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee state court against Defendant ...
Powell v. Healy, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 25776, 2022 WL 4181717 (9th Cir. Sept. 13, 2022) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 Plaintiff-Appellee Charlie A. Powell, a Tennessee hip hop artist manager, filed a breach of contract action in Tennessee state…
Continue Reading

Interlocutory Orders (Here, Compelling Arbitration) Do Not Merge Into A Final Judgment Of Dismissal Under Rule 41(b)

R and C Oilfield Servs., LLC v. Am. Wind Transport Group LLC, 45 F.4th 655 (3d Cir. 2022):  R and C Oilfield Services LLC (“R&C”) was ordered to arbitrate its dispute with American Wind Transport LLC and, seventeen months later, told the District Court that it had no plans to do so. As a result, the District Cou ...
R and C Oilfield Servs., LLC v. Am. Wind Transport Group LLC, 45 F.4th 655 (3d Cir. 2022):  R and C Oilfield Services LLC (“R&C”) was ordered to arbitrate its dispute with American Wind Transport LLC and, seventeen months …
Continue Reading

“Sanctions Should Not Be Used Lightly, And Should Be Used As A Lethal Weapon Only Under Extreme Circumstances” (Good Quote) — Inherent Power to Dismiss for Violation of Court Order Or Rule of Procedure Should Be Confined to Instances of Bad Faith — Meaning of “Excusable Neglect” — Factors under Rule 60(b) (Relief from Final Judgment) — Involuntary Dismissals “Should Be Confined To Instances Of ‘Bad Faith — Dismissal Disfavored When Sanctionable Conduct Attributable to Counsel, Not Client

Razvi v. Dallas Fort Worth Int'l Airport, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26058, 2022 WL 4298141 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022) PER CURIAM:* *1 Meher Razvi appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case and denial of his motion for relief from judgment on the grounds of excusa ...
Razvi v. Dallas Fort Worth Int’l Airport, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26058, 2022 WL 4298141 (5th Cir. Sept. 16, 2022) PER CURIAM:* *1 Meher Razvi appeals the district court’s dismissal of his case and denial of his motion…
Continue Reading

Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions – Necessity District Court Set Forth Reasons – If Granted, Fees Are “Generally Mandatory” – Three Exceptions – 4 Ways An Appellant Can Abandon A Claim – Rule 69 Doesn’t Limite Post-Judgment Discovery to Federal, As Opposed to State, Discovery Mechanisms – Dismissal Without Prejudice After Statute Of Limitations Has Run Is Reviewed As If It Were With Prejudice

Ctr. for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26869, 2022 WL 4462246 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2022) (per curiam) PER CURIAM:   *1 Irina Chevaldin ...
Ctr. for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 26869, 2022 WL 4462246 (11th Cir. Sept. 26, 2022) (per curiam) PER CURIAM:   *1 Irina Chevaldina, proceeding pro se, appeals following the voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of a…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Three Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions — Oral Order Sufficient under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) — Consideration of Lesser Sanctions Need Not Explicit, Particularly If Misconduct Is Egregious — Recidivism Appropriately Considered

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 641 B.R. 1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022): Plaintiff Orin S. Anderson (“Plaintiff” or “Anderson”) brought this adversary proceeding for himself and as a putative class action to enforce his and the other class members’ bankruptcy discharge under
Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A. (In re Anderson), 641 B.R. 1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022): Plaintiff Orin S. Anderson (“Plaintiff” or “Anderson”) brought this adversary proceeding for himself and as a putative class action to enforce his and the other …
Continue Reading
Previous21222324252627Next

Recent Posts

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

Depositions: Improper to Object to Form to Straightforward Questions (Not Compound, Vague, Leading or Speculative) — Lack of Foundation Objection Improper in 30(b)(6) Deposition — Improper to “Educate” Witness During Breaks of 30(b)(6) Deposition Through Witness Calls to Knowledgeable Corporate Colleagues — Magistrate Judge May Impose Financial Sanctions

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

RICO: Fraud on Government Entities Causing Plaintiffs to Pay More for Inmate Calls Actionable on Bridge v. Phoenix Bond Analysis — Fact That Governments Had Separate Injuries As Part of the Scheme (from Reduced Commissions) Irrelevant — Plaintiffs’ Injuries Not Derivative of Governments’ — The Fraud on the Governments Was Not Too Distinct From Plaintiffs’ Injuries But Rather Necessary to Injure Plaintiffs — No Risk of Duplicative Recoveries and No Plaintiff Better Situated to Sue for Plaintiffs’ Injuries

Inherent Power Sanctions — Dismissal for Threatening Defendant and Magistrate Judge — No First Amendment Right to Threaten Violence

RICO: Domestic Injury — Delivery of Fraudulently Non-Conforming Goods FOB Los Angeles for Shipment to China Means Injury Arose Domestically When Purchaser Took Title —Other Relevant Factors Include That The Non-Conforming Goods Were Sourced and Made in the U.S. and The Racketeering Activity (Mail/Wire Fraud) Occurred in, and Was Directed from, the United States — Irrelevant to Domestic Injury Inquiry Whether Property Is Tangible or Intangible — 7th Circuit’s “Injury-Felt” Test of Domestic Injury Rejected by Supreme Court — RICO Standing Requires Concrete Financial Loss, Not Merely Injury to Valuable Intangible Property Interest (9th Circuit)

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

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