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

“Exceptional Circumstances” Relieving a Law Firm of Rule 11 Liability for Misconduct of Its Lawyers — Good Quotes

Catton v. Defense Tech. Sys. Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19771 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2013): Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C. ("Todtman") and John Brady both appeal from the February 29, 2012, and August 2, 2012, orders issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Zilly, J.) imposing sa ...
Catton v. Defense Tech. Sys. Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19771 (2d Cir. Sept. 27, 2013): Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C. ("Todtman") and John Brady both appeal from the February 29, 2012, and August 2, 2012, orders issued by…
Continue Reading

After All Federal Claims Dismissed, District Court May Exercise Supplemental Jurisdiction over State Law Claims, As to Which There Is No Independent Federal Jurisdiction, Where to Do So Would Promote Judicial Economy

Hinterberger v. Kaleida Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17469 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2013): The employees argue that once the district court dismissed their RICO claim, it should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining claims. We disagree. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear--in a case that ...
Hinterberger v. Kaleida Health, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17469 (2d Cir. Aug. 21, 2013): The employees argue that once the district court dismissed their RICO claim, it should have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their remaining claims. We disagree.…
Continue Reading

Securities Act — Limitations — Discovery, Not Inquiry Notice, Standard Applies to ’33 Act — Need Not Plead Compliance with SOL — Inquiry Notice Applies to RICO — One Panel May “Reevaluate” Another’s Decision If New Supreme Court Case

Pension Fund for Operating Eng’rs  v. Mortg. Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19166 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 2013): Lead Plaintiff Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers (the "Operating Engineers") appeal from the District Court's initial order dismissing without prejudice their amended c ...
Pension Fund for Operating Eng’rs  v. Mortg. Asset Securitization Transactions, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19166 (3d Cir. Sept. 17, 2013): Lead Plaintiff Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers (the "Operating Engineers") appeal from the District Court's initial order dismissing…
Continue Reading

RICO — Statute of Limitations — Separate Accrual Rule — Factors — Reaffirmations of Prior Acts and Continuation of Earlier Injury Do Not Start New Limitations Period

Lehman v. Lucom, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17947 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013): Civil actions under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553, 120 S. Ct. 1075, 1080-81, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1047 (2000). Under th ...
Lehman v. Lucom, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17947 (11th Cir. Aug. 28, 2013): Civil actions under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See Rotella v. Wood,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Due Process Demands More Specific Notice for Client Than for Lawyer — Bad Faith for Inherent Power Sanctions Is Judged by an Objective Standard

Dial HD, Inc. v. ClearOne Commc’ns, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19241 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2013): First, we find unavailing Bowers's argument that he did not receive adequate notice of the district court's intent to use its inherent power to impose sanctions. A district court may impose sanctions using its inherent   power &qu ...
Dial HD, Inc. v. ClearOne Commc’ns, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19241 (11th Cir. Sept. 18, 2013): First, we find unavailing Bowers's argument that he did not receive adequate notice of the district court's intent to use its inherent power to…
Continue Reading

Erie Doctrine: Federal Court Attempting to Predict State Law on a Matter of First Impression May Consider the Case Law of Other Jurisdictions

Vechten v. Elenson, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2013): "[A] federal court attempting to forecast state law" on a matter of first impression "may consider the case law of other jurisdictions," see Guideone Elite Ins. Co. v. Old Cutler Presbyterian Church, Inc., 420 F.3d 1317, 1326 n.5 (11th Cir. 2005)***. < ...
Vechten v. Elenson, 920 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2013): "[A] federal court attempting to forecast state law" on a matter of first impression "may consider the case law of other jurisdictions," see Guideone Elite Ins. Co. v. Old…
Continue Reading

Failure to Collect Evidence Available to, But Not in the Possession of, a Party Does Not Constitute Spoliation

United States v. Greco, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17264 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013): Defendant Thomas Greco was convicted at the end of a three-week jury trial on charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery involving programs receiving federal funds (18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and § 371), violation of and conspiracy to violate the Ho ...
United States v. Greco, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17264 (6th Cir. Aug. 20, 2013): Defendant Thomas Greco was convicted at the end of a three-week jury trial on charges of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery involving programs receiving federal…
Continue Reading

Work Product Protection Extends to Oral Communications, Facts, and the Identity of Persons Interviewed by Counsel or Investigators, But Not to Identity of Interviewers

U.S. Bank N.A. v. PHL Variable Life Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143398 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013): The burden of establishing any right to work product protection is on the party asserting it. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated March 19, 2002 & August 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379, 384 (2d Cir. 2003) (party asserting work pr ...
U.S. Bank N.A. v. PHL Variable Life Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143398 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013): The burden of establishing any right to work product protection is on the party asserting it. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas Dated…
Continue Reading

Joinder — Do Defendants Who Participate in BitTorrent File-Sharing — As a Swarm — Engage in a Single Transaction or in a Series of Closely Related Transactions within Rule 20? Caselaw Split

TCYK, LLC v. Does 1-9, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125379 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2013): This is a copyright action in which plaintiff alleges that defendants copied and distributed plaintiff's copyrighted work, the motion picture "The Company You Keep." Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶ 5. Defendants are identified only by internet prot ...
TCYK, LLC v. Does 1-9, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125379 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 3, 2013): This is a copyright action in which plaintiff alleges that defendants copied and distributed plaintiff's copyrighted work, the motion picture "The Company You Keep." Complaint,…
Continue Reading

Motions for Reconsideration — Strict Standard — S.D.N.Y. Local Rule — Complaint Urging Positions Previously Rejected or Which District Court Advises Counsel Are Frivolous Merits Rule 11 Sanctions — Mistake, Inexperience No Defense

Hochstadt v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19418 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013): We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. RJE Corp. v. Northville Indus. Corp., 329 F.3d 310, 316 (2d Cir. 2003). A district court abuses its discretion when its decision: (1) is based on "an e ...
Hochstadt v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep’t, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19418 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013): We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. RJE Corp. v. Northville Indus. Corp., 329 F.3d 310, 316 (2d…
Continue Reading
Previous266267268269270271272Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice