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

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

RICO — Beneficiary of Estate Has No Standing to Sue for RICO Violation Committed against Estate — No Proximate Cause, Hence No Injury

Schrager v. Aldana, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19313 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013): Appellant Arnold Schrager alleges that Appellee Jennifer Aldana conspired with Karen Lipton and Russell Rosenblatt to defraud the estate of Roslyn Schrager, the mother of Appellant and Lipton, for over $1 million. The United States District Court for the Distric ...
Schrager v. Aldana, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19313 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013): Appellant Arnold Schrager alleges that Appellee Jennifer Aldana conspired with Karen Lipton and Russell Rosenblatt to defraud the estate of Roslyn Schrager, the mother of Appellant and…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions in Criminal Cases Must Take Counsel’s Constitutional Function into Account — Improper to Give No Warning, Then “Sanction Counsel for Defying the Court’s Unstated Expectations” (Good Quote)

United States v. Agosto-Vega, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19817 (1st Cir. Sept. 27, 2013) (Kayatta, J.):   Attorney Francisco Rebollo-Casalduc ("Rebollo"), a criminal defense attorney, appeals from a $2,000 sanction imposed upon him and his client for filing motions in limine im ...
United States v. Agosto-Vega, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19817 (1st Cir. Sept. 27, 2013) (Kayatta, J.):   Attorney Francisco Rebollo-Casalduc ("Rebollo"), a criminal defense attorney, appeals from a $2,000 sanction imposed upon him and his client for filing motions in limine…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction of Party/§ 1927 of GC—Factors in Picking Right Sanction—Non-Frivolous Positions Do Not Excuse Frivolous Ones—“Deploying a Few Random Nodes of Truth to the End of Evading…an Over-Arching…Truth” (Good Quotes)

Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137633 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2013): This action between Odyssey Marine Exploration and the Kingdom of Spain adjudicates the right to possession and ownership of more than $600,000,000.00 in silver specie.  This action presented ...
Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Unidentified Shipwrecked Vessel, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137633 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 25, 2013): This action between Odyssey Marine Exploration and the Kingdom of Spain adjudicates the right to possession and ownership of more than $600,000,000.00 …
Continue Reading

Why Not to Label an Opponent’s Argument “Ridiculous”

Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. 13-3047 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013): There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s argument “ridiculous,” which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett’s principal argument here.  The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the ...
Bennett v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., No. 13-3047 (6th Cir. Sept. 24, 2013): There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s argument “ridiculous,” which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett’s principal argument here.  The reasons include …
Continue Reading

If All Opinions Are Now Citable, What Does It Mean to Have a Court Rule Saying the Opinion Is Non-Precedential?

 Dixon v. Midland Mortg. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137279 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2013): Footnote 1. This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or, alternatively, to assist in any potential future analysis of the res judicata, law of the case, ...
Dixon v. Midland Mortg. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137279 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2013): Footnote 1. This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or, alternatively,…
Continue Reading

Failure to Provide 21-Day Safe Harbor Mandates Denial of Uncontested Rule 11 Motion

Dixon v. Midland Mortg. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137279 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2013): Midland filed its Motion for Sanctions on October 10, 2011, approximately two weeks after the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Therein, Midland invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 in seeking "an award of att ...
Dixon v. Midland Mortg. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137279 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2013): Midland filed its Motion for Sanctions on October 10, 2011, approximately two weeks after the Court's dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Therein, Midland invokes Federal…
Continue Reading
Previous273274275276277278279Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

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