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

Securities — SLUSA — Circuit Split over Meaning of “In Connection With”

From Roland v. Green, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5672 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012): Since Dabit, six of our sister circuit courts have tried to give dimension to the "coincide" requirement announced in SEC v. Zandford and brought into the SLUSA scheme in Dabit. Romano v. Kazacos, 609 F.3d 512 (2d Cir. 2010); Segal v. Fifth Third Bank, N.A., 581 ...
From Roland v. Green, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5672 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012): Since Dabit, six of our sister circuit courts have tried to give dimension to the “coincide” requirement announced in SEC v. Zandford and brought into the…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Can Court Use Rule 23(c)(4) to Certify a (b)(3) Class as to Parts of a Claim without Finding That Whole Claim Satisfies Predominance Requirement? Circuit Split

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6433 (D. Kan. Jan. 19, 2012): III. Rule 23 Requirements Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs class certification. Under Rule 23(a), the party seeking class certification must first demonstrate that: (1) the class is ...
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6433 (D. Kan. Jan. 19, 2012): III. Rule 23 Requirements Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., governs class certification. Under Rule 23(a), the party seeking class certification must…
Continue Reading

Service of Process by Mail on Canadian Permitted by Hague Conventions

Dierig v. Lees Leisure Indus., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26181 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2012): Defendant Lees Leisure, a business entity organized under the laws of Canada, asserts that service was not made in accordance with the Hague Convention and is therefore ineffective, meriting dismissal. (Doc. # 11-1 at 16).*** Footn ...
Dierig v. Lees Leisure Indus., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26181 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 28, 2012): Defendant Lees Leisure, a business entity organized under the laws of Canada, asserts that service was not made in accordance with the Hague Convention and…
Continue Reading

May District Court Transfer Part of an Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631? Circuit Split

Johnson v. Mitchell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28051 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012): Finally, in light of the court's conclusion that it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant Thomas, the only issue remaining is whether plaintiff's claims against defendant Thomas should be dismissed or transferred to the District of Colorado where Thomas resi ...
Johnson v. Mitchell, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28051 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012): Finally, in light of the court’s conclusion that it lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant Thomas, the only issue remaining is whether plaintiff’s claims against defendant Thomas should…
Continue Reading

New York State Spoliation Law — Negligence Suffices for Case-Ending Sanction If Prejudice Is Severe Enough

Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 90 A.D.3d 610, 933 N.Y.S.2d 735 (2d Dep’t 2011): "When a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense, the responsible party may be sanctioned by the striking of its pleading" ...
Jamindar v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 90 A.D.3d 610, 933 N.Y.S.2d 735 (2d Dep’t 2011): “When a party negligently loses or intentionally destroys key evidence, thereby depriving the non-responsible party from being able to prove its claim or defense,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Single Tardy Appearance by Counsel at Hearing Does Not Warrant Inherent Power Sanction

United States v. Olvera-Yanez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3437 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2012): Attorney Nikoo Berenji appeals the district court's imposition of sanctions for appearing late to a hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the imposition of sanctions and remand. Berenji contends the district abused i ...
United States v. Olvera-Yanez, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3437 (9th Cir. Feb. 21, 2012): Attorney Nikoo Berenji appeals the district court’s imposition of sanctions for appearing late to a hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we…
Continue Reading

When Does a Case Present a Substantial Ground for Difference of Opinion within 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)? Factors

Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28394 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2012): As to the second prong, which requires a substantial ground for difference of opinion, courts have varied in their approach. Generally, courts have found that there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion when: [A] tr ...
Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28394 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2012): As to the second prong, which requires a substantial ground for difference of opinion, courts have varied in their approach. Generally, courts have found that…
Continue Reading

RICO — Shareholder Does Not Suffer Concrete Financial Loss from Harm to Corporation — Must Show Special Duty Owed — No § 1962(a) Causation from Transaction Subsequent to Alleged Harm — Non-English Speaker’s Affidavit May Be Only in English

Ahn v. Hanil Dev. Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4641 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012): In 1997, Ahn and Defendant-Appellee Dong Sup Huh decided to open a Korean sports and entertainment complex, including a day spa, in Los Angeles. *** 1. Summary judgment was proper on Ahn's individual RICO § 1962(c) claims because Ahn lacks s ...
Ahn v. Hanil Dev. Corp., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4641 (9th Cir. Mar. 6, 2012): In 1997, Ahn and Defendant-Appellee Dong Sup Huh decided to open a Korean sports and entertainment complex, including a day spa, in Los Angeles. ***…
Continue Reading

Filing Federal Complaint Duplicating State Complaint Already Referred to Arbitration Sanctioned — Permissibility of Simultaneous State/Federal Actions in Other Circumstances Does Not Permit Refiling Adjudicated Action

Copeland v. Tom’s Foods, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1216 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2012): Thomas Ducey and his defunct law firm, Ducey & Associates, appeal from an order imposing sanctions for filing a complaint duplicating litigation that an Illinois court already had referred to arbitration. We affirm the judgment. *** In t ...
Copeland v. Tom’s Foods, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1216 (7th Cir. Jan. 20, 2012): Thomas Ducey and his defunct law firm, Ducey & Associates, appeal from an order imposing sanctions for filing a complaint duplicating litigation that an Illinois…
Continue Reading
Previous315316317318319320321Next

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