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

Certifications of Business Records as Authentic Do Not Violate Defendant’s Confrontation Rights

United States v. Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2012): Whether certifications of business records violate the Confrontation Clause is an issue of first impression for this Court. See, e.g., Weiland, 420 F.3d at 1076 n.13 ("[W]e need express no opinion on whether the Confrontation Clause requires the government to make the custodian of b ...
United States v. Anekwu, 695 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2012): Whether certifications of business records violate the Confrontation Clause is an issue of first impression for this Court. See, e.g., Weiland, 420 F.3d at 1076 n.13 (“[W]e need express no…
Continue Reading

Dismissal Appropriate Sanction for Deceiving the Court with False and Misleading Evidence

Brush v. Szekrenyi, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23908 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2012): The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brush's action as a sanction after reviewing the evidence before it and concluding that Brush submitted fraudulent affidavits concerning alleged violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. See Tr ...
Brush v. Szekrenyi, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23908 (9th Cir. Nov. 13, 2012): The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brush’s action as a sanction after reviewing the evidence before it and concluding that Brush submitted fraudulent…
Continue Reading

Rule 54(b) — Directing Entry of Final Judgment as to Some But Not All Parties or Claims — Factors and Review — Special Masters Entitled to Quasi-Judicial Immunity Even for Invoices for Services

Nystedt v. Nigro, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23947 (1st Cir. Nov. 20, 2012): The claims against the Nigro defendants are narrowly focused. The complaint posits that the special master's delinquent performance of his duties prolonged the will contest and, thus, caused the value of the estate to plummet. The plaintiff frames this plaint as both ...
Nystedt v. Nigro, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 23947 (1st Cir. Nov. 20, 2012): The claims against the Nigro defendants are narrowly focused. The complaint posits that the special master’s delinquent performance of his duties prolonged the will contest and, thus,…
Continue Reading

Does Rule 60(b)(1) Permit Relief from Judgment Because of Error of Law by Court? Circuit Split — Limited Scope of 60(b)(6)

United States Bank, N.A. v. Boardman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167388 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012): Rule 60(b) provides relief from judgment where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the ...
United States Bank, N.A. v. Boardman, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167388 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2012): Rule 60(b) provides relief from judgment where one or more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly…
Continue Reading

RICO Standing Established If Plaintiff Is Injured by One Predicate Act — Need Not Be Injured by All Alleged to Form the Pattern

Just Film, Inc. v. Merchant Servs., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173455 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012): Plaintiffs allege that Defendants defrauded them and the putative class members in a scheme involving credit and debit card processing services and equipment.... Plaintiffs divide the Defendants into two categories: Merchant Services Defenda ...
Just Film, Inc. v. Merchant Servs., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173455 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012): Plaintiffs allege that Defendants defrauded them and the putative class members in a scheme involving credit and debit card processing services and equipment….…
Continue Reading

Contempt Citation Against Feds for Post-BP Oil Drilling Moratorium Reversed — Stricter “Abuse of Discretion” Review for Contempt — Meaning of “Clear and Convincing” — Argument Waived by Inadequate Briefing

Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC v. Salazar, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24355 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2012) (Note: 2 to 1 decision): This case arises from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico. An explosion killed 11 workers, caused the drilling platform to sink, and resulted in a major uncontrolled release of oil. At Presidential ...
Hornbeck Offshore Servs., LLC v. Salazar, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24355 (5th Cir. Nov. 27, 2012) (Note: 2 to 1 decision): This case arises from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon accident in the Gulf of Mexico. An explosion killed 11 workers,…
Continue Reading

Court May Allow Affirmative Defense to Be Raised Initially in Pretrial Order or at Summary Judgment — PSLRA’s RICO Bar Applies to Securities in Private Entities — Predicate Acts Sharing Same Purpose, Result, Victims = Single RICO Enterprise

Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24403 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2012): Plaintiff David Gilmore ("David") appeals from the September 1, 2011 memorandum decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley, J.) granting summary judgment to Defendants Abby Gilmore, Arthur Freierman, and Sout ...
Gilmore v. Gilmore, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24403 (2d Cir. Nov. 28, 2012): Plaintiff David Gilmore (“David”) appeals from the September 1, 2011 memorandum decision and order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Circuit Split as to Whether Bad Faith Is Required or Recklessness Suffices — Failure to Name Counsel as Appellant Not Fatal If Appealed Order Sanctions Counsel Only — One Appellate Panel Cannot Overrule Another

McKenzie v. Norfolk S. Rwy., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24171 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2012): Appellants next challenge the district court's entry of attorneys' fees against Schmidt under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Prior to addressing the merits of the § 1927 sanctions, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction. *** Federal Rule of Appellate Proce ...
McKenzie v. Norfolk S. Rwy., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24171 (4th Cir. Nov. 20, 2012): Appellants next challenge the district court’s entry of attorneys’ fees against Schmidt under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Prior to addressing the merits of the §…
Continue Reading

Rule 45(c)(1) Cannot Support a Sanction Where the Cost of Complying with the Subpoena Is Minimal and Subpoena Was Not Facially Defective or Issued in Bad Faith — Appealability of Discovery Order Relating to Out-of-Circuit Case That Is Still Pending

Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24233 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012): Mount Hope Church ("Mount Hope" or "the Church") appeals a sanction order granting attorneys' fees and costs to Appellees Riseup Networks ("Riseup") and Objector dkwatt@riseup.net ("dkwatt") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1). The order, wh ...
Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24233 (9th Cir. Nov. 26, 2012): Mount Hope Church (“Mount Hope” or “the Church”) appeals a sanction order granting attorneys’ fees and costs to Appellees Riseup Networks (“Riseup”) and Objector…
Continue Reading

“Illogical” Interpretation of Protective Order Constitutes Reversible Abuse of Discretion — Meaning of “All” and “Any” Is Literal

Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2012): Joe Leonard Lambright appeals the decision of the district court to modify the protective order issued in his federal habeas proceeding to permit Respondent to turn over materials produced during the federal proceeding to the agency that will prosecute his resentencing, the Pima County At ...
Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2012): Joe Leonard Lambright appeals the decision of the district court to modify the protective order issued in his federal habeas proceeding to permit Respondent to turn over materials produced during the…
Continue Reading
Previous290291292293294295296Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

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)

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