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

§1927 Liability Can Be Joint/Several with Client Who Is Otherwise Sanctioned for Same Acts — Colorable Claims Can Be Pursued Vexatiously — Bad Faith Not Required in 10th Cir. — Reckless Indifference to Duties to Court Enough

 Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners ("Pla ...
Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020) ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action raising federal-and state-law claims against insurance companies, trade associations, and consulting firms (“Defendants”). The district…
Continue Reading

Court Rarely Finds Plain Error on Matters of First Impression

 United States v. Cooper, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13873 (7th Cir. April 30, 2020): *** On appeal, Cooper argues for the first time that he was entitled to a full, plenary resentencing hearing and that he ...
United States v. Cooper, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13873 (7th Cir. April 30, 2020): *** On appeal, Cooper argues for the first time that he was entitled to a full, plenary resentencing hearing and that he was entitled to be…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split Elsewhere Precludes Finding of Plain Error, As Does A Lack of Binding Precedent in the Circuit

United States v. Abrams, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14090 (6th Cir. May 1, 2020): *** We cannot declare an error to be "plain" "unless the error is clear under current law."
United States v. Abrams, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 14090 (6th Cir. May 1, 2020): *** We cannot declare an error to be "plain" "unless the error is clear under current law." United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734, …
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege: Crime-Fraud Exception Applies Even If Crime Or Fraud Is Only Counsel’s (Circuit Split) — Rule 11 Sanctions: Successor Counsel Not Liable for Predecessor’s Misconduct — Noerr Pennington No Defense to Discovery

Navient Sols., LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69846 (E.D. Va. April 20, 2020): Before the Court is defendants The Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman's and Jeffrey Lohman's (col ...
Navient Sols., LLC v. Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69846 (E.D. Va. April 20, 2020): Before the Court is defendants The Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman's and Jeffrey Lohman's (collectively, "LOJL") Objection to the…
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Court Can’t Compel Party to Make Settlement Offer — Any Settlement Void — Denial of SJ Motion = Not Frivolous — Failure to Settle Not Sanctionable — Generally No Improper Purpose Sanction If Position Grounded in Fact, Law

 Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10711Luis Tejero sued Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and a parallel state law. The parties ...
Tejero v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., L.L.C., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 10711Luis Tejero sued Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and a parallel state law. The parties eventually reached a settlement that forgave Tejero's …
Continue Reading

Can You Sue A Dead Person? No. — An Estate? No. — Can You Substitute for A Wrongly-Named Dead Person? Maybe — Dead Person Has No Citizenship, No Stake in Outcome (Case Or Controversy Implications)

 LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13216 (9th Cir. April 24, 2020): There are a number of ways to accomplish litigation regarding interests once held by a dead person. ...
LN Mgmt., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 13216 (9th Cir. April 24, 2020): There are a number of ways to accomplish litigation regarding interests once held by a dead person. One can institute or join …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Lack of Merit Not Enough — Must Be So Plainly Unmeritorious As to Warrant Sanction (Good Quote)

 Zell v. Ricci, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12573 (1st Cir. April 20, 2020):    High school is not without its unique challenges, this much [*2]  we know; we also know that the same can be said for bri ...
Zell v. Ricci, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12573 (1st Cir. April 20, 2020):    High school is not without its unique challenges, this much [*2]  we know; we also know that the same can be said for bringing a civil lawsuit …
Continue Reading

Appeals: Not Circuit’s Role to Sift Through Record to Find Uncited Evidence (44-vols., 8,410-pp.) — Motion to Seal OK to Ensure Court Records Not Used for Improper Purpose, Including Scandalizing or Libeling for the Press

 Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners ("Pla ...
Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action raising federal-and state-law claims against insurance companies, trade associations, and consulting firms (“Defendants”). The district…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Timeliness — Motion for Frivolous Factual Claim in Complaint Often Appropriately Filed, Decided at Summary Judgment Stage

 Estrada v. FTS United States, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12543 (11th Cir. April 20, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Jamie Zidell, Esq., and J.H. Zidell, P.A., appeal from the district cour ...
Estrada v. FTS United States, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12543 (11th Cir. April 20, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Jamie Zidell, Esq., and J.H. Zidell, P.A., appeal from the district court's orders requiring them to pay $60,000 in Rule 11…
Continue Reading

RICO: Federal Courts Have Never Construed RICO’s Attorney’s Fees Provision As Barring Prevailing Defendant from Recovering Fees Authorized Elsewhere — State Fees Statute Not Preempted Where Most Claims Arise under State Law

 Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners ("Pl ...
Snyder v. Acord Corp., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 12889 (10th Cir. April 22, 2020): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Seventeen Colorado homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) brought an action raising federal-and state-law claims against insurance companies, trade associations, and consulting firms (“Defendants”). The district…
Continue Reading
Previous24252627282930Next

Recent Posts

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

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

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