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

RICO: §1965(b), Not ’65(d), Governs Personal Jurisdiction (Circuit Split) — What Are the Ends of Justice within ’65 (b)? (Circuit Split) — Not Merely Suffering Harm in Forum — [Is Hub & Spoke Enterprise Viable?]

Laurel Gardens, LLC v. McKenna, 2020 WL 202215 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2020): *1 Plaintiffs, Laurel Gardens, LLC (“LG”), American Winter Services, LLC (“AWS”), Laurel Garden Holdings, LLC (“LGH”), LGSM, GP (“LGSM”), and Charles P. Gaudioso, appeal from the order of the United States District Court for the Ea ...
Laurel Gardens, LLC v. McKenna, 2020 WL 202215 (3d Cir. Jan. 14, 2020): *1 Plaintiffs, Laurel Gardens, LLC (“LG”), American Winter Services, LLC (“AWS”), Laurel Garden Holdings, LLC (“LGH”), LGSM, GP (“LGSM”), and Charles P. Gaudioso, appeal from the order…
Continue Reading

Recusal—28 U.S.C. §144 vs. §455 (w/Text): Different Procedures, Same Standards — DQ: Only Past, Present Client Has Standing to Seek Disqualification — Pleadings of Conflicted Counsel Not Void — Clerk Must Initiate Default Judgment (R. 55)

 Joseph v. City of San Jose, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37611 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE; DENYING MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION; DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; GRANTING I ...
Joseph v. City of San Jose, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37611 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2020): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECUSE; DENYING MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION; DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO DISMISS; …
Continue Reading

Post-Judgment Inherent Power Sanctions against Party Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction (PJD) OK — Is Defaulting Sanctionable? — Interactive Website As Basis for PJD: Factors — Purposeful Direction Still Needed

 Fidrych v. Marriott Int'l, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6477 (4th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020): Bud Fidrych and his wife, both South Carolina residents, sued Marriott International in South Carolina district cour ...
Fidrych v. Marriott Int'l, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6477 (4th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020): Bud Fidrych and his wife, both South Carolina residents, sued Marriott International in South Carolina district court after Fidrych was injured at the Boscolo Milano, a …
Continue Reading

If Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismisses Per FRCivP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) & Refiles in State Court, Fed. Ct. Can’t Award Costs of First Action Per 41(d), Even Tho It Could If 2nd Action Were Filed in Fed. Ct.—First Impression at Circuit Level—Dist. Cts. Split

 Sargeant v. Hall, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6438 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020): Under
Sargeant v. Hall, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6438 (11th Cir. Mar. 2, 2020): Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), if a plaintiff who voluntarily dismissed an action files a second action against the same defendant based on or …
Continue Reading

RICO Claim Must Be Colorable to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — No Association in Fact Enterprise Stated by Allegations That Are Conclusory, Fail to Connect Conduct to Enter. Or to Allege Plausibly Continuing Unit

Lynn v. Brown, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3802, 2020 WL 598999 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (unpublished): Rosemary Ann Ly ...
Lynn v. Brown, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3802, 2020 WL 598999 (10th Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (unpublished): Rosemary Ann Lynn, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s orders dismissing her complaint against Defendant Andrew George Brown, III (No. …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: §1927 for Filing Premature Notice of Appeal to Delay District Court Proceedings — No 37(c)(1) Preclusion Despite Failure to ID Witnesses in Initial Disclosures: Harmless Error Where All ID’ed in Trial Brief

Hannah v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2020 WL 521848 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (unpublished):   *1 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders and judgment of said District Court be and they hereby are AFFIRMED.   Appellants-C ...
Hannah v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2020 WL 521848 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (unpublished):   *1 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders and judgment of said District Court be and they hereby are AFFIRMED…
Continue Reading

RICO Causation: Lawyer Not Directly Harmed by Competitors’ Illegal Use of Recruiters to Solicit Work Comp Clients — Direct Injury Suffered by Clients and Insurance Companies

Ozeran v. Jacobs, 2020 WL 777646 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Robert Ozeran appeals the district court’s decision dismissing with prejudice his claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) an ...
Ozeran v. Jacobs, 2020 WL 777646 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Robert Ozeran appeals the district court’s decision dismissing with prejudice his claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) and California’s Unfair Competition…
Continue Reading

Magistrate Judges: Motion to Appoint Receiver Is Dispositive within R. 72, Even Tho Unisted in §636(a)(1)(A), As It Requires Merits Determination — Unlike Sanctions Motion Where Non-Dispositive Penalty Imposed Or Stay of Litigation Pending Arbitration

Ml-Cfc 2007-6 P.R. Props. v. Bpp Retail Props., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6217 (1st Cir. Feb. 28, 2020):  This appeal arises from a federal district court's designation of a magistrate judge to "hear and ...
Ml-Cfc 2007-6 P.R. Props. v. Bpp Retail Props., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 6217 (1st Cir. Feb. 28, 2020):  This appeal arises from a federal district court's designation of a magistrate judge to "hear and determine" — pursuant to 28 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

Appropriate Remedy for Scant R. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) Damages Disclosure Is Motion to Compel, Not R. 37 Motion for Sanctions — Absent Showing of Harm, No Abuse of Discretion to Deny Sanctions [Despite Non-Discloser’s Burden to Show Harmless Error]

 Finato v. Fink, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5140 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Joaquim Finato appeals the district cour ...
Finato v. Fink, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5140 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Joaquim Finato appeals the district court's decisions on a series of claims he brought against Keith A. Fink & Associates ("KFA") based on KFA's …
Continue Reading

Trial Time Limits May Be Imposed But Court’s Power “Not Unbounded” — Trial Efficiency Can Undermine Fairness (Good Quotes) — Importance of Objecting —Sanctions (R. 37): Attorney’s Fees Needn’t Be Calculated with “Exacting Specificity”

Raynor v. G4S Solutins (USA), Inc., 2020 WL 917060 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020) (unpublished): *1 After 15 years of employment, G4S Secure Solutions, Inc. (“G4S”), fired E. Ray Raynor. He brings a host of federal and state law claims related to his employment and termination. The district court granted summary judgmen ...
Raynor v. G4S Solutins (USA), Inc., 2020 WL 917060 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020) (unpublished): *1 After 15 years of employment, G4S Secure Solutions, Inc. (“G4S”), fired E. Ray Raynor. He brings a host of federal and state law claims…
Continue Reading
Previous28293031323334Next

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