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

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

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
Previous319320321322323324325Next

Recent Posts

Practice of Seeking Leave to Amend after The Case Is Dismissed Is Discouraged

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

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)

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