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

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

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
Previous318319320321322323324Next

Recent Posts

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Rule 11 Sanctions: (1) Improper Purpose of Harassment Reasonably Determined Based on Past Tactics (25 Lawsuits, 14 Ethics Complaints, and 150 FOIA Requests) As Well As Present Behavior — (2) Hearings Are Not Only Not Required to Satisfy Due Process But, If The Record Is Otherwise Adequate, Are Affirmatively Discouraged

RICO and Probate Exception to Federal Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction over RICO Claim Not Barred by Probate Exception Even If the Federal Judgment May Be Binding on the Probate Proceedings (Or Vice Versa) — Calculating Damages Based on Diminution of Value of Estate ≠ Administration of the Estate — Doesn’t Matter If RICO Misconduct Includes Defendants’ Actions with Respect to The Estate

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

RICO — Pleading Conspiracy — Plaintiffs Must Plausibly Allege That the Defendants Knowingly Joined the RICO Conspiracy — Sparse Allegations of Knowledge of Fraud Due to Participation in a Commercial Transaction Insufficient to State RICO Conspiracy Claim Where Allegations Not Inconsistent with Ordinary Commercial Behavior — While Knowledge May Be Pled “Generally” under Rule 9(b), It Cannot Be Alleged Conclusorily and Must Satisfy the Twiqbal Plausibility Standard

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice