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

Photos of Texts Extracted Using Cellebright UFED = Admissions, Authenticated by Location on Sender & Recipient Phones, Accurate Identification of “Mom” on One, Contents (Remember Rule 902(14) in Federal Court)

 State v. Panzeca, 2020-Ohio-326 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2020) : [*P1]  Appellant, Amy Lea Panzeca, appeals her conviction in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas after the trial court f ...
State v. Panzeca, 2020-Ohio-326 (Ohio Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2020) : [*P1]  Appellant, Amy Lea Panzeca, appeals her conviction in the Warren County Court of Common Pleas after the trial court found her guilty of two counts of permitting drug…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Relative Culpability Irrelevant — Default (1) Apt for Obstruction, (2) & 7th Amendment Jury Trial Right, (3) Factors — Sanctions Veil Piercing Must Meet Normal Requirements — If No Judgment Entered (& Needed), Appeal within 180 Days

 KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3129 (6th Cir. Jan 28, 2020) (upublished) (Note:  see our Jan. 22, 2020, post for the opinion vacating certain sanctions on defense counsel): ...
KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3129 (6th Cir. Jan 28, 2020) (upublished) (Note:  see our Jan. 22, 2020, post for the opinion vacating certain sanctions on defense counsel): Colin Tennebar flouted court orders to …
Continue Reading

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Hannah v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 2020 WL 521848 (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2020) (unpublished): *1 ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders and judgment of said District Court be and they hereby are AFFIRMED.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-Cross-Appellees Kim H ...
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

No Contempt for Violating Settlement Agmt. (SA), But If SA Allows Court to Order Compliance, Contempt for Violating Order OK — Civil v. Crim Contempt (Factors): Line Can Blur in Complex Injn Cases — Fines as Compensatory

 Parsons v. Ryan, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2837 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2020): The consolidated appeals in this comeback case arise from a class-action by prisoners in the custody of the Arizona Department of Correct ...
Parsons v. Ryan, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 2837 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2020): The consolidated appeals in this comeback case arise from a class-action by prisoners in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) against senior ADC officials…
Continue Reading

Criminal Antitrust (Sherman): Federal Funds = Interstate Commerce — Bid-Rigging Implies Price Fixing — Reasonableness Irrelevant to Per Se Violation — Summary Chart Probative, Not 403 with Cautionary Instruction

United States v. Vega-Martinez, 2020 WL 502538 (1st Cir. Jan. 31, 2020): *1 The two appellants in this case are school-bus operators who contracted with the Caguas, Puerto Rico municipal school system to drive school children to and from school each day. Instead of competing w ...
United States v. Vega-Martinez, 2020 WL 502538 (1st Cir. Jan. 31, 2020): *1 The two appellants in this case are school-bus operators who contracted with the Caguas, Puerto Rico municipal school system to drive school children to and from school …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Dismissal As Shotgun Pleading (Defined), Dismissal Factors (11th Circuit) — Must Give 1 Amendment — Dismissal for Disregarding Order ≠ Abuse of Discretion, Especially If Warned — Pro Se Must Comply with Rules (Liberal Construction)

Sarhan v. Miami Dade College, 2020 WL 428926 (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Robert Sarhan, an adjunct professor at Miami-Dade College, filed several complaints in the underlying case against the College’s Board of Trustees, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1 ...
Sarhan v. Miami Dade College, 2020 WL 428926 (11th Cir. Jan. 28, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Robert Sarhan, an adjunct professor at Miami-Dade College, filed several complaints in the underlying case against the College’s Board of Trustees, alleging violations…
Continue Reading

Can’t Use Contempt to Decide First Impression Iss. — Contempt Factors — “Trifecta” Arg.: Wrong on Facts, Law, Policy (Good Quotes) — Bank Services ≠ Active Concert — Cross-Boarder Discovery: Factors — General Jurisdiction & Banks

 Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9102 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2020): ORDER DENYING NONPARTY BANKS MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT, DENYING ASSIGNEE'S MOTION TO HOLD BANKS IN CONTEMPT AND FOR A TURNOV ...
Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9102 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2020): ORDER DENYING NONPARTY BANKS MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT, DENYING ASSIGNEE'S MOTION TO HOLD BANKS IN CONTEMPT AND FOR A TURNOVER ORDER, AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE NONPARTY BANKS CONDITIONAL …
Continue Reading

Civil Disqualification vs. Criminal Ineffectiveness: Even If Cases Substantially Related & Disqualifying Confidential Information Learned in Substantially Related Past Case, Defendant Must Show It Created an Actual Conflict That Affected Representation

 Harvey v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1617 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2020) (unpublished): On the day his trial was scheduled to begin, Defendant Lamont Harvey pleaded guilty to one count of distrib ...
Harvey v. United States, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1617 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2020) (unpublished): On the day his trial was scheduled to begin, Defendant Lamont Harvey pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of controlled substances in violation of …
Continue Reading

Party Can’t Name Judge as Witness, Cite to His or Her Rulings in Party’s Prior Cases to Force Recusal — Rulings Almost Never Support §455 Recusal — Parties Can’t Create Basis to Recuse by Their Own Acts (Good Quotes)

 Partain v. City of S. Padre Island, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36309 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Johnny Ray Partain sued Den ...
Partain v. City of S. Padre Island, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36309 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Johnny Ray Partain sued Dennis Stahl, Anna Stahl, Victor Carranza, and the City of South Padre Island, bringing 42 …
Continue Reading

Appeals: Exercising Jurisdiction over Orders Not Specified in Notice of Appeal (Factors) — Notice Construed Liberally — Error to Dismiss As Sanction in Third Circuit without Considering Poulis Factors

Hammond v. Lancaster City Bur. of Police, 2020 WL 91265 (3d Cir. Jan. 2, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM *1 Khalil Hammond appeals from a number of orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We will vacate the District Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedin ...
Hammond v. Lancaster City Bur. of Police, 2020 WL 91265 (3d Cir. Jan. 2, 2020) (unpublished): PER CURIAM *1 Khalil Hammond appeals from a number of orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We…
Continue Reading
Previous32333435363738Next

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