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

Government Websites Are Self-Authenticating under Rule 902(5) — Also Authenticatable under Rule 901(b)(4) If Properly Presented

Williams Farm Produce Sales, Inc. v. R & G Produce Co., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3369 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2014): Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. argues that there was no evidence to support the finding that it owned the federal cause of action because all of the documents provided by R&G were unauthenticated hearsay. We, ho ...
Williams Farm Produce Sales, Inc. v. R & G Produce Co., 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 3369 (Tex. Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2014): Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. argues that there was no evidence to support the finding that it owned…
Continue Reading

Ad Hominem Attacks on Opposing Counsel Subject to Inherent Power Sanctions

Mayes v. Kollman, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6055 (5th Cir April 1, 2014): Third, Appellants argue that counsel for Appellees prejudicially described Appellants' attorney during closing argument as an attorney who is "always advertising" and telling his clients that a vehicular collision is "cash time." Indee ...
Mayes v. Kollman, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6055 (5th Cir April 1, 2014): Third, Appellants argue that counsel for Appellees prejudicially described Appellants' attorney during closing argument as an attorney who is "always advertising" and telling his clients that a …
Continue Reading

Email Authentication — Emails Produced in Discovery when Offered by Party Opponent Deemed Authentic

Frehner v. Clark Cnty. School Dist., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44788 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2014): Footnote 4   Frehner submitted copies of purported e-mails between he and various officials with the Nevada Department of Education ("NDOE") in August 2011 and May 2012 concerning his department assignment. (Frehner Ex. 7, Dkt. No. 33 ...
Frehner v. Clark Cnty. School Dist., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44788 (D. Nev. Mar. 31, 2014): Footnote 4   Frehner submitted copies of purported e-mails between he and various officials with the Nevada Department of Education ("NDOE") in August 2011 and…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Dismissal Factors and Weighting — Bad Faith — Ninth Circuit Standards

Volcan Grp., Inc. v. Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 451 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014): Volcan Group, Inc. d/b/a Netlogix ("Netlogix") appeals the district court's dismissal of its breach of contract action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") as a sanction for Netlogix's spoliation and fabri ...
Volcan Grp., Inc. v. Omnipoint Commc’ns, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 451 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2014): Volcan Group, Inc. d/b/a Netlogix ("Netlogix") appeals the district court's dismissal of its breach of contract action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. ("T-Mobile") as…
Continue Reading

Are Attorneys’ Fees Includable in a Bond Issued under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7? — Circuit Split — Potential Fed.R.App.P. 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Appeal Are Not Includable within Bond

Rossi v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34180 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2014): 1.  Attorneys' Fees Circuits are split on the question of whether or not to include attorneys' fees in a bond issued under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7. See Azizian v. Fede ...
Rossi v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34180 (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2014): 1.  Attorneys' Fees Circuits are split on the question of whether or not to include attorneys' fees in a bond issued under Federal Rule of …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Even If Compliance with Safe Harbor Is Factually Impossible, Non-Compliance Dictates Denial of Motion (So Don’t Use Rule 11 in These Circumstances)

Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5175 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014): The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") appeals the district court's order granting the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California's ("Shura Council") motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ...
Islamic Shura Council of S. Cal. v. FBI, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5175 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2014): The Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") appeals the district court's order granting the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California's ("Shura Council") motion…
Continue Reading

Email Evidence — Unprivileged Email from Counsel to Client Encapsulating Client’s Statements Admissible against Client as Agent Admission under Rule 801(d)(2)

Reardon v. Boylan, 2014 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 331 (Mass. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2014): This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Robert M. Reardon, alleged that he suffered significant damages by relying on advice that his former counsel, Paul G. Boylan, had provided. After a seven-day trial in Superior Court, a jury rul ...
Reardon v. Boylan, 2014 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 331 (Mass. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2014): This is a legal malpractice action in which the plaintiff, Robert M. Reardon, alleged that he suffered significant damages by relying on advice that his…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Not Just for Frivolousness But Also for “Blatant Misrepresentations” — Good Quotes: (1) Weak, “Almost Hopeless” ≠ Frivolous, (2) Sleeping on One’s Rights and (3) Pointlessness of Epithets in Court Filings

Candelario-Del-Moral v. UBS Fin’l Servs. Inc. (In re Efron), 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322 (1st Cir. Mar. 21, 2014): For over four centuries, persons learned in the law have known that, when litigation is in prospect, vigilance is good and somnolence is bad. Commentators and courts have phrased this sentiment in different ways. See, e.g ...
Candelario-Del-Moral v. UBS Fin’l Servs. Inc. (In re Efron), 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322 (1st Cir. Mar. 21, 2014): For over four centuries, persons learned in the law have known that, when litigation is in prospect, vigilance is good and…
Continue Reading

Website Evidence — Hearsay — Admissibility under Business Records (Rule 803(6)) and Commercial List (803(17)) Exceptions (Case Law Splits) — Authentication Issues

Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Tech., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161489, 109 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1763 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2013): Internet websites and web postings are also typically inadmissible as hearsay. United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637-38 (7th Cir. 2000). Although some commentators have argued that websites could be ad ...
Southco, Inc. v. Fivetech Tech., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161489, 109 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1763 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2013): Internet websites and web postings are also typically inadmissible as hearsay. United States v. Jackson, 208 F.3d 633, 637-38 (7th…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Reputational Impact (Good Quotes) — Inherent Power — Need for Restraint Is Greatest in Criminal Cases — Meaning of Candid / Candor

In re Plaza-Martinez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5555 (1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2014): We turn next to the merits. The court below did not describe the basis of its authority for imposing the challenged sanction, but the circumstances make plain that the sanction was imposed under its inherent power. See United Sta ...
In re Plaza-Martinez, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5555 (1st Cir. Mar. 26, 2014): We turn next to the merits. The court below did not describe the basis of its authority for imposing the challenged sanction, but the circumstances make…
Continue Reading
Previous243244245246247248249Next

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