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

Affidavits Excluded for Failure to Identify Affiants in Initial or Supplemental Disclosures, Even Though Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal — Factors for Exclusion and for Dismissal Sanctions

Carmody v. K.C. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (8th Cir. April 23, 2013): Sergeant James Carmody, Officer Marcus Davis, and Officer Robert Vivona (officers) appeal the district court's1 orders (1) striking the officers' affidavits submitted in resisting summary judgment, and (2) granting summary judgment to the Kans ...
Carmody v. K.C. Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8128 (8th Cir. April 23, 2013): Sergeant James Carmody, Officer Marcus Davis, and Officer Robert Vivona (officers) appeal the district court’s1 orders (1) striking the officers’ affidavits submitted in…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions — Pro Se Litigants Not Entitled to Disobey Two Orders before a Default or Dismissal Can Be Declared — Extrajudicial Rudeness Separately Sanctioned and Forms Part of Basis for Default Dismissal

Maus v. Ennis, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013): John Ennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's grant, in part, of a default judgment in favor of David Maus and Mark Ornstein (collectively, the "plaintiffs") as a sanction against Ennis, the defendant, in their action filed pursuant to the Anticybersquatti ...
Maus v. Ennis, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5468 (11th Cir. Mar. 20, 2013): John Ennis, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s grant, in part, of a default judgment in favor of David Maus and Mark Ornstein (collectively, the “plaintiffs”)…
Continue Reading

Sanction Consisting of Award of Attorney’s Fees Not Yet Reduced to a Sum Certain Is Not Appealable

Webb v. Morella, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7393 (5th Cir. April 12, 2013): The Webbs raise a number of issues relating to the district court's decision to impose sanctions. While the court granted Morella's Rule 11 motion and stated that it would award $200 per hour in attorneys' fees for work relating to the motion to dismiss, the court als ...
Webb v. Morella, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7393 (5th Cir. April 12, 2013): The Webbs raise a number of issues relating to the district court’s decision to impose sanctions. While the court granted Morella’s Rule 11 motion and stated that…
Continue Reading

Spoliation — Refusal to Give Mandatory Adverse Inference Instruction Is Consistent with Refusal to Grant Default Judgment (or Dismissal) — Permissive Instruction Upheld

Flagg v. City of Detroit, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (6th Cir. April 25, 2013): Plaintiffs challenge the district court's decision to impose a permissive, as opposed to mandatory, adverse inference sanction against the City for destroying "e-mails sent and received by four former high-ranking Detroit officials, including . . . ...
Flagg v. City of Detroit, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8361 (6th Cir. April 25, 2013): Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s decision to impose a permissive, as opposed to mandatory, adverse inference sanction against the City for destroying “e-mails sent and…
Continue Reading

RICO — Fraudulent Appraisal Sustains Mail Fraud-Based § 1962(c) Claim Alleging Scheme to Defraud Homeowner into Taking Out Unsustainable Mortgage, Leading to Foreclosure and Bankruptcy — Proximate Cause Is Not Same as Sole Cause (Good Quote)

Wallace v. Midwest Fin. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8111 (6th Cir. April 23, 2013): This is a subprime mortgage case brought by the borrower, Harold Wallace, against the lender, MortgageIT, Inc. ("MortgageIT"), the mortgage broker, Midwest Financial & Mortgage Services, Inc. ("Midwest Financial"), the broker's two principa ...
Wallace v. Midwest Fin. Mortg. Servs., Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8111 (6th Cir. April 23, 2013): This is a subprime mortgage case brought by the borrower, Harold Wallace, against the lender, MortgageIT, Inc. (“MortgageIT”), the mortgage broker, Midwest Financial…
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions — No Bad Faith Required for Adverse Inference If Preservation Is Required by Statute or Regulation and Harmed Party Is within Class Protected by That Provision — Even Adverse Inference Insufficient to Avoid Summary Judgment

Grosdidier v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4706 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 8, 2013): Camille Grosdidier has worked in the French to Africa Service of the Voice of America ("VOA") since 1987, since 1991 as a GS 12. When she did not receive a promotion to Senior Editor GS 13 in 2006, she sued the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board ...
Grosdidier v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4706 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 8, 2013): Camille Grosdidier has worked in the French to Africa Service of the Voice of America (“VOA”) since 1987, since 1991 as a GS 12.…
Continue Reading

By Bringing Bad Faith Action, Insured Places in Issue the Conduct of Both Sides of Litigation — Rule 68 — If Court Does Not Award Costs, Costs Should Be Excluded in Valuing the Judgment — § 1927 Sanctions on Appeal Though Properly Denied Below

Charyulu v. Calif. Cas. Indem. Exch., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7328 (9th Cir. April 11, 2013): Plaintiff Cindy Charyulu, special administrator of the Estate of Fatu Taputu, appeals the judgment, after a jury trial, entered in favor of the insurance company in her action claiming that the insurance company was guilty of bad faith in failing ...
Charyulu v. Calif. Cas. Indem. Exch., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7328 (9th Cir. April 11, 2013): Plaintiff Cindy Charyulu, special administrator of the Estate of Fatu Taputu, appeals the judgment, after a jury trial, entered in favor of the insurance…
Continue Reading

American Pipe Tolls Statute of Limitations for Subsequent Class Action — Not Just Individidual Action — If Prior Class Action Was Disposed of Without Resolution of Class Issues

In re: Vertrue Inc. Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7693 (6th Cir. April 16, 2013): This matter arises from a multidistrict litigation proceeding, encompassing thirteen putative class action suits challenging the sales and marketing practices of Vertrue, Inc. and Adaptive Marketing, LLC. On April 16, 2010, th ...
In re: Vertrue Inc. Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7693 (6th Cir. April 16, 2013): This matter arises from a multidistrict litigation proceeding, encompassing thirteen putative class action suits challenging the sales and marketing practices of…
Continue Reading

RICO Causation: Regression Analysis Aggregate Evidence Satisfies Daubert — Shifting Burden of Proof on Causation — More Relaxed Burden of Proof of Proof on Damages — Good Quotes

In re Neurontin Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation (Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6793 (1st Cir. April 3, 2013): This is an appeal from verdicts of over $140 million, reached by both a jury and a court, compensating Kaiser, a major health plan provider and insurer, for the injury Kaiser ...
In re Neurontin Marketing And Sales Practices Litigation (Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6793 (1st Cir. April 3, 2013): This is an appeal from verdicts of over $140 million, reached by both a…
Continue Reading

In Pari Delicto as a Defense to a Private Antitrust Action

Gatt Commc’ns, Inc. v. PMC Associates, LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3186 (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2013): 3. In pari delicto Defendants, and our concurring colleague, have argued that we should deploy the equitable doctrine of in pari delicto ("in equal fault") to erect a complete and simple bar to Gatt's claims, and there is so ...
Gatt Commc’ns, Inc. v. PMC Associates, LLC, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 3186 (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2013): 3. In pari delicto Defendants, and our concurring colleague, have argued that we should deploy the equitable doctrine of in pari delicto (“in…
Continue Reading
Previous277278279280281282283Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

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

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