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

Discovery Sanctions — Default Judgment — Standards — Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine vs. Rule 37

SEC v. Razmilovic, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14765 (2d Cir. July 22, 2013): A. The Entry of Default Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that if a party "fails to obey an order to provide . . . discovery, . . . the court where the action is pending may issue further just orders,&qu ...
SEC v. Razmilovic, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14765 (2d Cir. July 22, 2013): A. The Entry of Default Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in part that if a party "fails to obey an order to…
Continue Reading

Even After 2011 Federal Courts Jurisdiction & Venue Clarification Act, Earlier-Served Defendants Must Consent to Removal within 30-Day Period within Which Later-Served Defendant Must File Notice of Removal

Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128692 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013): Defendants seeking removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 1441 must do so according to the procedures in 28 U.S.C. section 1446. Prior to the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-63, 125 Stat. 758 (codified i ...
Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128692 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2013): Defendants seeking removal to federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 1441 must do so according to the procedures in 28 U.S.C. section…
Continue Reading

London Merger

Download associated file: London Merger.pdf  Effective today, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC is merged with Hage Aaronson Limited of London to form Joseph Hage Aaronson Limited.  A copy of the announcement is attached.  C ...
Download associated file: London Merger.pdf  Effective today, Gregory P. Joseph Law Offices LLC is merged with Hage Aaronson Limited of London to form Joseph Hage Aaronson Limited.  A copy of the announcement is attached.  Current email addresses will automatically…
Continue Reading

Failure to Raise PSLRA Bar to RICO Action below Bars Consideration on Appeal — Not Purely Legal Question

Olivier Family Interests, Ltd. v. Wright, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17833 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013): In Appeal No. 12-2573, Michael Bogart and Doris Wright, as the personal representative of the estate of Russell Wright (who died during the pendency of this proceeding), appeal the judgment of the District Court awarding damages of $12,900,000 in accordance with ...
Olivier Family Interests, Ltd. v. Wright, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17833 (8th Cir. Aug. 27, 2013): In Appeal No. 12-2573, Michael Bogart and Doris Wright, as the personal representative of the estate of Russell Wright (who died during the pendency…
Continue Reading

Which Is It — “Attorneys’ Fees” or “Attorney’s Fees” or “Attorney Fees” or “Attorney Fee” or “Attorneys’ Fee” or “Attorney’s Fee”?

Daybreak, Inc. v. Friedberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77366 (D.V.I. June 3, 2013): Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Daybreak, Inc., doing business as Huber & Associates ("Daybreak"), for attorneys' fees and costs. Footnote 1. Before addressing the merits of the fee petiti ...
Daybreak, Inc. v. Friedberg, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77366 (D.V.I. June 3, 2013): Before the Court is the motion of the plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Daybreak, Inc., doing business as Huber & Associates (“Daybreak”), for attorneys’ fees and costs. Footnote 1. Before…
Continue Reading

Multiple30(b)(6) Witnesses = 1 Deponent — I.e., the Entity — Each Witness May Review and Sign Transcript Even If Request Made Only at First Witness’s Testimony — Substantive Errata Changes Permitted in Second Circuit, but Cross Is Broad

In re Weatherford Int’l Secs. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120321 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2013): The motion currently before the Court in this case presents an issue of first impression but little practical significance: when multiple witnesses are designated as corporate representatives pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of C ...
In re Weatherford Int’l Secs. Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120321 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2013): The motion currently before the Court in this case presents an issue of first impression but little practical significance: when multiple witnesses are designated as…
Continue Reading

Does State or Federal Law Govern Interpretation of a Forum Selection Clause If the Underlying Contract Contains a Choice of Law Provision? If State, What State? Circuit Split

Indoor Billboard Northwest Inc. v. M2 Sys. Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2013): The parties do not address or analyze whether the Court should apply federal common law, Connecticut law, or Oregon law to determine the scope and effect of the forum-selection clause. As noted, the Promissory Note provides it "shall be construed and e ...
Indoor Billboard Northwest Inc. v. M2 Sys. Corp., 922 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 2013): The parties do not address or analyze whether the Court should apply federal common law, Connecticut law, or Oregon law to determine the scope…
Continue Reading

Court May Convert Unpaid Portion of Disgorgement Remedy, Imposed as Compensatory Civil Contempt Sanction, into Money Judgment after Contemnor Has Disgorged What It Can — Breadth of, and Limitations on, Contempt—Good Quotes—No Election of Remedies

Federal Trade Comm’n v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2013): This appeal presents an issue of first impression: whether a district court can convert the unpaid remainder of an equitable disgorgement remedy, stemming from a compensatory civil contempt sanction, into the legal remedy of a money judgment after the contemnor has disgor ...
Federal Trade Comm’n v. Leshin, 719 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2013): This appeal presents an issue of first impression: whether a district court can convert the unpaid remainder of an equitable disgorgement remedy, stemming from a compensatory civil contempt sanction,…
Continue Reading

What Exactly Is an “Outlaw”? — The Demise of Outlawry and Rise of the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine — The Latter’s Inaptness in Most Civil Cases

Niemi v. Lasshofer, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18589 (10th Cir. Sept. 6, 2013): An unconventional real estate financing scheme presents us with some unconventional legal questions. Questions ranging from whether an Austrian financier should be denied access to the American legal system because he failed to comply with an order freezing his as ...
Niemi v. Lasshofer, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18589 (10th Cir. Sept. 6, 2013): An unconventional real estate financing scheme presents us with some unconventional legal questions. Questions ranging from whether an Austrian financier should be denied access to the American…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Failure to Comply with Scheduling Order, Absent Motion to Compel or Interim Order from Court, Does Not Justify Dismissal — Scheduling Order Is Not the Type of Order Contemplated by Rule 37

Holmes v. Trinity Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18328 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013): Holmes appeals the district court's denial of her "Motion for Summary Judgment or Default Judgment," which asked the court to grant a dispositive discovery sanction against Trinity for its "willful pattern of action in failing to comply" with the scheduli ...
Holmes v. Trinity Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18328 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2013): Holmes appeals the district court’s denial of her “Motion for Summary Judgment or Default Judgment,” which asked the court to grant a dispositive discovery sanction against…
Continue Reading
Previous264265266267268269270Next

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