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

Sanctions: Dismissal — Factors under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) vs. Rule 41(b) (11th Cir.) [Was Privilege Honored Here?]

 Lyle v. BASF Chemistry, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3425, 2020 WL 564074 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Andrea Lyle appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of he ...
Lyle v. BASF Chemistry, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3425, 2020 WL 564074 (11th Cir. Feb. 5, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Andrea Lyle appeals the district court's dismissal with prejudice of her complaint against BASF Chemistry, Inc. and Kelly…
Continue Reading

Waiver of Privilege/Work Product Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Per Curiam Opinion (PCO) with 3 Differing Opinions: Only PCO = Holding, Use The Marks Rule to Construe 3 Opinions — Law of the Case Doctrine & Mandate Rule (10th Cir.)

 Harte v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cty. of Johnson, 940 F.3d 498 (10th Cir. 2019): Although we strive to ensure that the parties, the district courts, and the public understand our decisions, sometimes we f ...
Harte v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cty. of Johnson, 940 F.3d 498 (10th Cir. 2019): Although we strive to ensure that the parties, the district courts, and the public understand our decisions, sometimes we falter. Plaintiffs previously appealed the…
Continue Reading

Copyrights: If Licensor Grants Licensee Unrestricted Right to Sublicense, Sublicense May Be Implied from Conduct Of Sublicensor & Sublicensee — Contracts: Covenants vs. Conditions & Effect of Violation on Use of License As Defense

 Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8099 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2020): In this case of first impression in the circuit courts, we hold that a copyright licensee given t ...
Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8099 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2020): In this case of first impression in the circuit courts, we hold that a copyright licensee given the unrestricted right to grant sublicenses may …
Continue Reading

Hospital’s YouTube Videos Aspiring to Zero Errors Irrelevant to Med Mal Unless Relied on by Pl — Court May Deny Use of R. 32(a)(3) Video Dep If Wit Available, Even Tho Rule Says Dep Can Be Used for Any Purpose (Dicta?)—What’s Relevant? (Good Quote)

 Berrios v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17329 (D.P.R. Jan. 30, 2020); BACKGROUND Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Angélica González-Berrios' ...
Berrios v. Mennonite Gen. Hosp., Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17329 (D.P.R. Jan. 30, 2020); BACKGROUND Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Angélica González-Berrios' Motion in Limine to Include and Exclude Evidence at Trial and Supplemental In Limine Request (Docket …
Continue Reading

Video Footage Subject to Tangible Spoliation Standards — Must Be Destroyed in Bad Faith (5th Cir.) [It isn’t ESI?]

 Crain v. City of Selma, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7864 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2020): Alton Crain filed this lawsuit on May 3, 2016, against the City of Selma, Texas, and several of its employees ("the defendant ...
Crain v. City of Selma, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7864 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2020): Alton Crain filed this lawsuit on May 3, 2016, against the City of Selma, Texas, and several of its employees ("the defendants"). Crain alleges that…
Continue Reading

Federal Court Has Personal Jurisdiction (JD) in Class Action If It Has General JD over Def. Or Specific JD Based on Named Plaintiff Alone — 23(f) Appeal OK from Any Order Functionally Equivalent to Motion Denying Certification

Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020): Florence Mussat, an Illinois physician doing business through a professional services corporation, received two unsolicited f ...
Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560 (7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2020): Florence Mussat, an Illinois physician doing business through a professional services corporation, received two unsolicited faxes from IQVIA, a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Pennsylvania. …
Continue Reading

Disqualification—Advocate-Witness Rule (3.7) Is Trial-Oriented, Doesn’t Bar Pretrial Participation — Motion Timely Only after Dismissal Motions, Discovery Determine Whether Trial Will Occur & High Hurdle of Necessity of Testimony at Trial Satisfied

 Andrade v. City of Hammond, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31042 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2020): This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Certain Defense Counsel as Material Witnesses [DE 1 ...
Andrade v. City of Hammond, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31042 (N.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2020): This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify Certain Defense Counsel as Material Witnesses [DE 16] filed by Plaintiff Jose Andrade on…
Continue Reading

Is Legal Error, Standing Alone, Ever a Valid Basis for Relief from a Judgment under Rule 60(b)? — Circuit Split — Timing of Rule 60(b) Motion

 Centeno v. City of Fresno, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32376 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019): This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to amend the judgment. (Doc. No. 106.) On February 20, 2019, that ...
Centeno v. City of Fresno, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32376 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019): This matter is before the court on defendants' motion to amend the judgment. (Doc. No. 106.) On February 20, 2019, that motion came before the…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Good Quotes — FRAP 38 Not Invoked Lightly — No Sanctions for Choosing to Fight Uphill Battle — Losing ON Merits ≠ Utterly WITHOUT Merit — Unlikely to Succeed, Deferential Std. of Review Not Enough

 Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063 (7th Cir. Mar. 6, 2020): This appeal presents two questions: first, whether we should reopen our court's prior judgment in this case, see ...
Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 7063 (7th Cir. Mar. 6, 2020): This appeal presents two questions: first, whether we should reopen our court's prior judgment in this case, see Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 901 F.3d 803 …
Continue Reading
Previous27282930313233Next

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