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

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

Securities — If Group Pleading Is Dead, Is Collective or Corporate Scienter Alive? Circuit Split

Rahman v. Kid Brands, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31406 (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2012): In Winer Family Trust, the Third Circuit was asked to consider, inter alia, whether plaintiff former shareholders of Pennexx Foods could assert liability on the part of individual defendant directors and officers of Pennexx and Smithfield Foods on the basis of ...
Rahman v. Kid Brands, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31406 (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2012): In Winer Family Trust, the Third Circuit was asked to consider, inter alia, whether plaintiff former shareholders of Pennexx Foods could assert liability on the part…
Continue Reading

Circuit Split: Is There a “Dangerous Patient” Exception to Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege? — 8th Circuit Says No — Statement to Emergency Room Admitting Physician’s Assistant Not Privileged — Elements of Privilege

United States v. Ghane, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4990 (8th Cir. Mar. 9, 2012): In the normal course, "[w]e review the district court's admission of testimony for an abuse of discretion." United States v. Bad Wound, 203 F.3d 1072, 1075 (8th Cir. 2000). However, because this case encounters the delineation of a federal testimonial privile ...
United States v. Ghane, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4990 (8th Cir. Mar. 9, 2012): In the normal course, “[w]e review the district court’s admission of testimony for an abuse of discretion.” United States v. Bad Wound, 203 F.3d 1072, 1075…
Continue Reading

May a District Court, in De Novo Review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Consider New Evidence Not Proffered to the Magistrate Judge? Circuit Split

Muhammad v. Close, 798 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (reviewing summary judgment R&R): The Magistrate Judge Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq., requires a reviewing district court judge to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of ...
Muhammad v. Close, 798 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Mich. 2011) (reviewing summary judgment R&R): The Magistrate Judge Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636 et seq., requires a reviewing district court judge to “make a de novo determination of those portions…
Continue Reading

No Sanctions for Failure to Impose Litigation Hold and Consequent Destruction of Emails in IT Consolidation — No Bad Faith

Strutton v. Meade, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2117 (8th Cir. Feb. 3, 2012): Finally, we address Strutton's appeal of the district court's denial of sanctions against defendants. The district court retains an inherent power to impose sanctions, and we review the use of that authority for abuse of discretion. Stevenson v. Union Pac. RR. Co., 35 ...
Strutton v. Meade, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2117 (8th Cir. Feb. 3, 2012): Finally, we address Strutton’s appeal of the district court’s denial of sanctions against defendants. The district court retains an inherent power to impose sanctions, and we review…
Continue Reading

Injunctions — Circuit Split as to Whether Likelihood of Success Must Be Shown or Balancing Approach Retains Validity

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Warns, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26174 (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2012): The standard for awarding preliminary injunctive relief is governed by Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) he is ...
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Warns, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26174 (D. Md. Feb. 29, 2012): The standard for awarding preliminary injunctive relief is governed by Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). A plaintiff seeking…
Continue Reading

RICO — Hobbs Act Predicate Requires Proof that Defendant Deprived Victim of Property Valuable in Defendants’ Hands — Circuit Split as to Whether Increasing Chances of Winning Contract by Destroying Competitor Suffices

United States v. Cain, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1772 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2012): On October 3, 2007, a federal grand jury in the Western District of New York returned a 21-count indictment charging David Cain, his brother Chris Cain, and their cousin Jamie Soha with participating in and conspiring to participate in the conduct of the affairs o ...
United States v. Cain, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1772 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2012): On October 3, 2007, a federal grand jury in the Western District of New York returned a 21-count indictment charging David Cain, his brother Chris Cain,…
Continue Reading

Outside of Civil Rights Cases, Request to Amend Complaint Must Be Accompanied by Proposed Amendment (Third Circuit)

Delrio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3698 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2012): Bolmer also argues that the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to amend his complaint for a third time in order to plead additional facts that would demonstrate that the Property Managers prevented their undocumented r ...
Delrio-Mocci v. Connolly Properties Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3698 (3d Cir. Feb. 24, 2012): Bolmer also argues that the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to amend his complaint for a third time in order…
Continue Reading
Previous317318319320321322323Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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