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: §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Hannah v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2020 WL 521848 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (unpublished):   *1 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders and judgment of said District Court be and they hereby are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Hannah v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2020 WL 521848 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (unpublished):   *1 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders and judgment of said District Court be and they hereby are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Ozeran v. Jacobs, 2020 WL 777646 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Robert Ozeran appeals the district court’s decision dismissing with prejudice his claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt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Ozeran v. Jacobs, 2020 WL 777646 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2020) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Robert Ozeran appeals the district court’s decision dismissing with prejudice his claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt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

For Rooker-Feldman (RF) to Bar Claim, Source of Injury Must Be State Court Judgment, Not Ministerial Act of Clerk Or Post-Judgment Conduct of Counsel — Concurrence: “Here’s to Urging [Supreme] Court to Give 1 Last Requiem to RF”

 Vanderkodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5838 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020): In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., the Supreme Court made clear that the
Vanderkodde v. Mary Jane M. Elliott, P.C., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5838 (6th Cir. Feb. 26, 2020): In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., the Supreme Court made clear that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine—which prohibits the lower federal courts …
Continue Reading

Social Media Photo: Page Ownership Irrelevant If Photo Independently Authenticated — Presence of Depicted Persons in Court Allows Jury to Determine Identity, Evidence of Hair Color, Clothing, Happy New Year Filter Allows Determination of Date

 Holmes v. State, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 104 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 3, 2020): Appellant Jamar Lee Holmes was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Harford County of attempted first-degree murder, attem ...
Holmes v. State, 2020 Md. App. LEXIS 104 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Feb. 3, 2020): Appellant Jamar Lee Holmes was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Harford County of attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, first-degree assault,…
Continue Reading

Even Though There Is No Safe Harbor in § 1927, Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Sanction Party Who Withdrew One Challenged Claim, and Attempted to Withdraw the Other, Before Opponent Filed Sanctions Motion

 Alcantra v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5829 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2020) (unpublished): Defendants appeal the denial of sanctions against Plaintiff Correy Alcantra's counsel un ...
Alcantra v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5829 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2020) (unpublished): Defendants appeal the denial of sanctions against Plaintiff Correy Alcantra's counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Trial Taint—Meaning of Substantially Related —Subst’l Relationship Raises Presumption Confidences Shared — Lack of Recollection Irrelevant — Malleability of Memory — Pre-Indictment Delay in Moving Not Counted in Waiver Ana

 United States v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32144 (Feb. 25, 2020): On May 2, 2019, the Government moved to disqualify one of the defendants' attorneys, James M. Cole of Sidley Aust ...
United States v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32144 (Feb. 25, 2020): On May 2, 2019, the Government moved to disqualify one of the defendants' attorneys, James M. Cole of Sidley Austin LLP. Mr. Cole was Deputy [*2]  …
Continue Reading

Arbitration Clause Doesn’t Strip Fed. Ct. of Jurisdiction — Meaning of “Pursuant to” — Sanctions: Inherent Power (IHP) to Revoke Pro Hac Vice, R. 11 Improper Purpose for Determined Indifference to Merits, §1927 $ to Adversary & Ct. (IHP?)

 Royce v. Michael R. Needle P.C., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5233 (7th Cir. Feb. 20, 2020): This dispute over attorney's fees has a long, tortured history. Not because it is unduly complex or involves novel le ...
Royce v. Michael R. Needle P.C., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5233 (7th Cir. Feb. 20, 2020): This dispute over attorney's fees has a long, tortured history. Not because it is unduly complex or involves novel legal issues, but because one…
Continue Reading
Previous29303132333435Next

Recent Posts

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)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

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

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