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

Rule 37(c) Preclusion for 26(a)(1) Non-Disclosure Requires Harm to Opponent, And Harm Doesn’t Require Preclusion — Preclusion Factors (1st Cir.) — “Substantially Justified” And “Harmless[ness]” Exceptions — Late Disclosure Can Be Harmless Even If It Follows Filing of Summary Judgment Motion

Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt v. Ingersoll-Rand De P.R., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16146 (1st Cir. May 28, 2021): Trane Puerto Rico, LLC and its parent company, Ingersoll-Rand de Puerto Rico, Inc. (collectively "Trane") terminated the employment of Giorgio ...
Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt v. Ingersoll-Rand De P.R., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16146 (1st Cir. May 28, 2021): Trane Puerto Rico, LLC and its parent company, Ingersoll-Rand de Puerto Rico, Inc. (collectively “Trane”) terminated the employment of Giorgio Zampierollo-Rheinfeldt (“Zampierollo”) after thirty-three years…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction to Modify Protective Order after Rule 41(a)(1) Dismissal (11th Cir. (2-1))— Not a “Collateral Matter” over Which Jurisdiction Remains (Like Costs, Fees, Contempt Sanctions, Rule 11 Sanctions, and Motions to Confirm Arbitral Awards) — Stipulated Protective Order Is an Enforceable Contract, Subject to Post-Dismissal Lawsuit — Strong Dissenting Opinion

Absolute Activist Value Master Fund v. Devine, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16110 (11th Cir. May 28, 2021): Susan Devine, who was sued for her alleged involvement in money laundering and market manipulation schemes, appeals the District Court's denial o ...
Absolute Activist Value Master Fund v. Devine, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16110 (11th Cir. May 28, 2021): Susan Devine, who was sued for her alleged involvement in money laundering and market manipulation schemes, appeals the District Court’s denial of her…
Continue Reading

“The purpose of a Rule 11 sanction is to punish ‘unprofessional conduct in litigation'” — Bankruptcy: Automatic Stay Does Not Preclude Imposition of Contempt Sanctions: “‘[a] litigant should not be allowed to delay the imposition of sanctions indefinitely by the expedient of declaring bankruptcy'”

 Kupperstein v. Schall (In re Kupperstein), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11944 (1st Cir. April 22, 2021): BAC ...
 Kupperstein v. Schall (In re Kupperstein), 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11944 (1st Cir. April 22, 2021): BACKGROUND The short story, sticking with only what is relevant here, is that years ago, Donald C. Kupperstein, with the help of his comrade, …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions: Attorney May Not Rely on Clients When Objectively Unreasonable — Cannot Rely on Discovery to Bring Claims with No Factual Basis — Specific Identification Requirement — $10,000 Deterrent Penalty OK — Factors from Adv. Comm. Note Adopted

 Goldman v. Barrett, 825 Fed. Appx. 35 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished):  [*36] 
 Goldman v. Barrett, 825 Fed. Appx. 35 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2020) (unpublished):  [*36]  SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-Appellants Robert M. Goldman…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions for Impeding, Delaying, Frustrating Deposition — Intricacies of Remote Deposition Protocols and 30(b)(6) Witnesses Using Notes — No Duty to ID Which 30(b)(6) Topic a Question Relates to — When a Protective Order Is a R. 37(b) Order — Sanctions Must Be Proportional to Offense — Motion to Strike = Objection — When Inherent Power Sanctions for Deposition Misconduct Are Apt

John Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87596, 2021 WL 1840649 (D.D.C. May 7, 2021): *1 At his deposition, the corporate representative of defendant Exxon Mobil Oil of Indonesia (“EMOI”) refused to ans ...
John Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87596, 2021 WL 1840649 (D.D.C. May 7, 2021): *1 At his deposition, the corporate representative of defendant Exxon Mobil Oil of Indonesia (“EMOI”) refused to answer most of …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: Second Circuit Factors — Exclusion of Witness Not Disclosed Per 26(a) Apt — “Interviewing a Witness Late in the Process Does Not Provide Cover for a Revised Disclosure” — Reconsideration Factors

 Irish v. Tropical Emerald Llc & Rainbow United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87946 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021): ...
 Irish v. Tropical Emerald Llc & Rainbow United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87946 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2021): After a series of failed attempts to follow this Court’s rules, including those on page limitations, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration …
Continue Reading

Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Mandatory Damages Disclosure Does Not Extend to Disgorgement Because It Is An Equitable, And Not A Damages, Remedy

 Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., 405 F. Supp. 3d 981 (D. Kan. 2019): A number of the motions a ...
 Northern Nat. Gas Co. v. L.D. Drilling, Inc., 405 F. Supp. 3d 981 (D. Kan. 2019): A number of the motions are before the court in the present dispute over the effects of the migration of natural gas which plaintiff…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court — Personal Jurisdiction — Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Require A Causal Relationship Between The Defendant’s In-State Activity And The Litigation — “Some Relationships Will Support Jurisdiction Without A Causal Showing”

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 2021 WL 1132515 (U.S. March 25, 2021): *3 In each of these two cases, a state court held that it had jurisdiction over Ford Motor Company in a products-liability suit stemming from a car accident. The accident happened in the State where suit was brought. The victim was one of the State’s residents. And Ford ...
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 2021 WL 1132515 (U.S. March 25, 2021): *3 In each of these two cases, a state court held that it had jurisdiction over Ford Motor Company in a products-liability suit stemming…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions OK As Basis for Motion in Limine — Damages Evidence Excluded for 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Disclosure Violation — Whether A Statement Is Puffery Or A Representation of Fact Is A Question of Law — Attorney’s Fees Award Can Be Reduced for Block Billing

Grouse River Outfitters, Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., 2021 WL 754839 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2021) (unpublished):MEMORANDUM** *1 Grouse River Outfitters, Ltd. (“Grouse River”) appeals various decisions of the district court. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, ex ...
Grouse River Outfitters, Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., 2021 WL 754839 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2021) (unpublished):MEMORANDUM** *1 Grouse River Outfitters, Ltd. (“Grouse River”) appeals various decisions of the district court. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we…
Continue Reading
Previous21222324252627Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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