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 11 — Sua Sponte vs. Sanctions Sought by Motion — Different Standards in Second Circuit — Good Quotes

Muhammad v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20589 (Aug. 19, 2013): Christina Agola is an attorney practicing primarily employment law in the Western District of New York. She has a long disciplinary history in the courts of this Circuit. See, e.g., In re Agola, 484 F. App'x 594 (2d Ci ...
Muhammad v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 20589 (Aug. 19, 2013): Christina Agola is an attorney practicing primarily employment law in the Western District of New York. She has a long disciplinary history in the courts of…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court May Take Judicial Notice of Public Records and Government Documents on Governmental Websites

Hadley v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32547 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2014): New Chrysler did not manufacture the Class Vehicles, nor did it even exist when the vehicles were manufactured. Rather, New Chrylser was incorporated on April 28, 2009 (see ECF No. 11-2),2 in relation to the bankruptcy of the now d ...
Hadley v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32547 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2014): New Chrysler did not manufacture the Class Vehicles, nor did it even exist when the vehicles were manufactured. Rather, New Chrylser was incorporated on April…
Continue Reading

Do Rule 9(b)’s Heightened Pleading Requirements Apply to Negligent Misrepresentation Claims? — Three-Way Circuit Split

Lakeshore Eng’ring v. Richmond Utilities Board, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34223 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 17, 2014): HDR is correct in concluding that Rule 9(b) applies to state-law negligent-misrepresentation claims brought under Kentucky law. In Republic Bank, the plaintiff brought claims of both fraud and negligent misrepresen ...
Lakeshore Eng’ring v. Richmond Utilities Board, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34223 (E.D. Ky. Mar. 17, 2014): HDR is correct in concluding that Rule 9(b) applies to state-law negligent-misrepresentation claims brought under Kentucky law. In Republic Bank, the plaintiff brought claims…
Continue Reading

Rule 611(a) Summary Chart Introduced as Pedagogical Aide Must Be Linked to Admitted Evidence — Chart Proponent Bears Burden of Proving Admissibility of Summarized Evidence

United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012): 1. Admission of Exhibit 1-2 The testimony of cooperating defendant Sparks formed much of the government's case against Miller and Irvin. Over the course of four days, Sparks described the various forgeries, misrepresentations, and other fraudulent acti ...
United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012): 1. Admission of Exhibit 1-2 The testimony of cooperating defendant Sparks formed much of the government's case against Miller and Irvin. Over the course of four days, Sparks described the…
Continue Reading

PSLRA’s RICO Bar Applies to Extraterritorial Securities Fraud Not Actionable in U.S. — Key Is Nature of Conduct, Not Actionability — If One Prong of Conduct Is Barred, Entire Scheme Barred

Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG v. Wong, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33797 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2014): C. RICO and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced  [*21] and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 ("RICO") to "seek t ...
Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel – WBG v. Wong, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33797 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2014): C. RICO and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced  [*21] and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970…
Continue Reading

RICO — Failure to Plead Relevant Labor or Geographic Market Fatal to Claim Wages Were Depressed Due to Hiring Illegal Employees — Neither Injury Nor Causation Pled — Rule-of-Reason Antitrust Case Law Drawn On

Simpson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (11th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014): Plaintiffs Melissa Simpson and Sabrina Roberts appeal the dismissal of a putative class action suit brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68. In this case, we must determine whether these two ...
Simpson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (11th Cir. Mar. 7, 2014): Plaintiffs Melissa Simpson and Sabrina Roberts appeal the dismissal of a putative class action suit brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act,…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — Court of Federal Claims Lacks Jurisdiction over RICO and Constitutional Claims Because They Do Not Mandate Payment of Money

Trevino v. United States, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4252 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2014): Fourth, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over Ms. Treviño's RICO claims or her claims under the due process, equal protection or supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution. These claims do not fall within the court's juris ...
Trevino v. United States, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4252 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2014): Fourth, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over Ms. Treviño's RICO claims or her claims under the due process, equal protection or supremacy clauses of …
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Bad Faith Required for Fees as a Spoliation Sanction (Ninth Circuit), at Least under Inherent Power — “‘Perhaps’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Yes,’ It Means ‘Perhaps’” (Good Quote)

Joseph v. Linehaul Logistics, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24434 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2013): Arlene Joseph sued LineHaul Logistics for wrongful discharge and unpaid overtime. A jury found for Joseph as to wrongful discharge and for LineHaul as to overtime. Post-trial motions were filed and denied, judgment was entered, and both parties ap ...
Joseph v. Linehaul Logistics, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24434 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2013): Arlene Joseph sued LineHaul Logistics for wrongful discharge and unpaid overtime. A jury found for Joseph as to wrongful discharge and for LineHaul as to…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — $413 Million Default Affirmed — Testimony Incredible in Part May Be Wholly Rejected — Diligent Efforts Needed to Show Compliance with Discovery Order Impossible — Damages Undisturbed Unless Plainly Excessive — Evidence for Contempt

Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2014): Adam Swiech, Richard Swiech, and Derek Lewicki received a host of discovery sanctions in the district court. These sanctions eventually led to the ultimate penalty, when they ended up on the wrong end of a $413,000,000 default judgment. In this appeal, the defendants c ...
Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290 (7th Cir. 2014): Adam Swiech, Richard Swiech, and Derek Lewicki received a host of discovery sanctions in the district court. These sanctions eventually led to the ultimate penalty, when they ended up on the …
Continue Reading
Previous245246247248249250251Next

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