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

Testimony Based on Newspaper Reports Is Hearsay — Documents Seized from PLO Not Admissible under Residual Exception —Rule 807 Standards — Lay Opinion May Not Include Specialized Knowledge or Legal Opinion

United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011): In this consolidated case, we address the appeals of five individuals and one corporate defendant convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses for providing material aid and support to a designated terrorist organization. The terrorist organization at issue is Hamas, which in ...
United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011): In this consolidated case, we address the appeals of five individuals and one corporate defendant convicted of conspiracy and substantive offenses for providing material aid and support to a designated…
Continue Reading

Rule 408 Exclusion of Attorney Conversation Erroneous Where There Was No Pending Dispute — Note Importance of Announcing Intent to Maintain Settlement Offers Confidential

MCI Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Hagan, 641 F.3d 112; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9699 (5th Cir. 2011): This case arises from a January 20, 2006 incident in which an underground cable owned by plaintiff-appellant MCI was allegedly severed. MCI filed suit against defendants-appellees Wayne Hagan and James Joubert, alleging that Joubert was neglig ...
MCI Commc’ns Servs., Inc. v. Hagan, 641 F.3d 112; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9699 (5th Cir. 2011): This case arises from a January 20, 2006 incident in which an underground cable owned by plaintiff-appellant MCI was allegedly severed. MCI filed…
Continue Reading

Class Action Fairness Act — Parens Patriae Action Brought on Behalf of All State Citizens pursuant to State Statute Falls within CAFA’s General Public Exception and Must be Remanded to State Court

State ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62089 (S.D. Miss. May 3, 2012): On March 25, 2011, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Hinds County alleging that the defendants had engaged in price-fixing in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Miss. Code § 75-24 ...
State ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62089 (S.D. Miss. May 3, 2012): On March 25, 2011, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Hinds County alleging that the defendants…
Continue Reading

Social Media — Chats and Texts Authenticated by One Party to Conversations Who Lacked Motive to Falsify — Corroborating Circumstances for Text Authentication

United States v Lundy, 2012 WL 1021795 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2012): In August 2006, Lundy was a 23 year old attending Delta State College in Cleveland, Mississippi and residing in Hollandale, Mississippi. Using the name ‘Jarious Johnson’, Lundy made contact with and engaged in a string of sexually laced text message and phone conversat ...
United States v Lundy, 2012 WL 1021795 (5th Cir. Mar. 28, 2012): In August 2006, Lundy was a 23 year old attending Delta State College in Cleveland, Mississippi and residing in Hollandale, Mississippi. Using the name ‘Jarious Johnson’, Lundy made…
Continue Reading

However Liberally Construed, Pro Se Complaint Must Still Contain Sufficient Facts to Satisfy Twiqbal

Pieczenik v. Bayer Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5986 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 22, 2012) (RICO / copyright infringement action): In general, pro se litigants are held to a lesser standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers when determining whether a complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980). ...
Pieczenik v. Bayer Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5986 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 22, 2012) (RICO / copyright infringement action): In general, pro se litigants are held to a lesser standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers when determining whether a complaint…
Continue Reading

Email Authentication Standards in New Hampshire (Applying Authentication Rule Identical to Fed.R.Evid. 901)

State v. Ruggiero, 163 N.H. 129, 35 A.3d 616 (2011): New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that "[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." The proof necess ...
State v. Ruggiero, 163 N.H. 129, 35 A.3d 616 (2011): New Hampshire Rule of Evidence 901(a) provides that “[t]he requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that…
Continue Reading

Foreign Government Is Not a “Person” within 28 U.S.C. § 1782 from Whom Discovery May Be Compelled for Use in a Foreign or International Proceeding

Thai-Lao (Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of the Lao People’s Democratic Rep., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37915 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012): 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorizes a federal district court to assist a foreign or international tribunal, or a person interested in a proceeding before such a tribunal, to obtain testimony, documents, or other di ...
Thai-Lao (Thailand) Co. v. Gov’t of the Lao People’s Democratic Rep., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37915 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012): 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) authorizes a federal district court to assist a foreign or international tribunal, or a person interested…
Continue Reading

While Negligence May Support an Adverse Inference for Spoliation in the Second Circuit, It Is within the District Court’s Discretion to Deny that Sanction

Twitty v. Salius, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1115, 2-5 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2012): We first consider plaintiff's argument that the district court erred when it failed to give an adverse inference instruction in response to the erasure of the original intake videotape, which plaintiff characterizes as the "spoliation of the original intake video. ...
Twitty v. Salius, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1115, 2-5 (2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2012): We first consider plaintiff’s argument that the district court erred when it failed to give an adverse inference instruction in response to the erasure of the…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — Court May Proceed to Merits While Appeal of Denied Motion to Compel Is Pending, But Cannot Rule on Second Motion to Compel — Affidavit on Personal Knowledge Stating that Contract with Arbitration Clause Was Assigned Proves Assignment

From Grant v. Houser, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6060 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2012): Before us are two interlocutory appeals from denials of motions to compel arbitration in this action. Primarily at issue is: whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the second motion after the appeal of the first denial; and whether sufficient evide ...
From Grant v. Houser, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6060 (5th Cir. Mar. 23, 2012): Before us are two interlocutory appeals from denials of motions to compel arbitration in this action. Primarily at issue is: whether the district court had jurisdiction…
Continue Reading

Internet Chat — Authenticated and Best Evidence Satisfied by Credible Testimony of One Participant in Chat

United States v. Lebowitz, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6859 (11th Cir. April 5, 2012): III. AUTHENTICITY AND BEST EVIDENCE Lebowitz argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence printouts of internet chat conversations between K.S. and Lebowitz. This court reviews a district court's evidentia ...
United States v. Lebowitz, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6859 (11th Cir. April 5, 2012): III. AUTHENTICITY AND BEST EVIDENCE Lebowitz argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence printouts of internet chat conversations between K.S. and…
Continue Reading
Previous310311312313314315316Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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