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

Spoliation (Civil) vs. Missing Evidence/Consciousness of Guilt (Criminal) — Criminal Defendant Need Not Show Bad Faith to Get Missing Evidence Instruction in Maryland

From Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360, 10 A.3d 184 (Ct. App. 2010): Maryland recognizes some form of jury instructions regarding missing or destroyed evidence in both civil and the criminal contexts. In the civil context, we give a jury instruction for the "spoliation of evidence" where a party has destroyed or failed to produce evidence. < ...
From Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360, 10 A.3d 184 (Ct. App. 2010): Maryland recognizes some form of jury instructions regarding missing or destroyed evidence in both civil and the criminal contexts. In the civil context, we give a jury…
Continue Reading

Potentially Serious Exposure of Redacted Confidential Information via ECF

Don Cowan of Raleigh, North Carolina, has identified a confidentiality glitch in the federal electronic case filing system. If a non-party files a motion (e.g., to quash a subpoena or to intervene) and thereby becomes a party for ECF purposes, that person or entity may immediately have access to all material electronically filed in the action, including confiden ...
Don Cowan of Raleigh, North Carolina, has identified a confidentiality glitch in the federal electronic case filing system. If a non-party files a motion (e.g., to quash a subpoena or to intervene) and thereby becomes a party for ECF purposes,…
Continue Reading

Likelihood of Unnecessary, Duplicative Litigation May Warrant Stay Pending Appeal (American Pipe) — Standards for Stay — Failure to Consent to Expedited Appeal Is a Factor Favoring Stay

From Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): On August 18, 2010, the above-captioned plaintiffs moved for a stay of the Court's August 6, 2010 Order pending their appeal of that Order. The August 6 Order vacated an arbitrator's June 1, 2009 award, which had permitted the plaintiffs to pursue class certific ...
From Jock v. Sterling Jewelers, Inc., 738 F. Supp. 2d 445 (S.D.N.Y. 2010): On August 18, 2010, the above-captioned plaintiffs moved for a stay of the Court’s August 6, 2010 Order pending their appeal of that Order. The August 6…
Continue Reading

Mediation Presentation Reviewed by Party to Refresh Recollection for Deposition Ordered Produced — 3-Part Test, and 9 Factors Considered, for Production under Rule 612

From Greenwood Realty, Inc. v. Action Realty, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2011): This matter is before the court on ‘[Defendants’] Motion to Compel ... [Plaintiffs] to produce an electronic copy of a 90 slide Power Point presentation first presented at the mediation of this case on September 13, 2010, and phot ...
From Greenwood Realty, Inc. v. Action Realty, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15586 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2011): This matter is before the court on ‘[Defendants’] Motion to Compel … [Plaintiffs] to produce an electronic copy of a 90 slide Power…
Continue Reading

Whether Notes Are “Securities” within the 1934 Act — Limitations of the 9-Month Duration Requirement

From Simmons Inv., Inc. v. Conversational Computing Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15962 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2011): [T]he Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the notes in question are securities. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 define the term "security" to include "any note." [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10)] However, in R ...
From Simmons Inv., Inc. v. Conversational Computing Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15962 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2011): [T]he Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately alleged that the notes in question are securities. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 define…
Continue Reading

Statutes of Limitations Are Strictly Construed Not to Bar Government

From United States v. Rebelo, 394 Fed. Appx. 850 (3d Cir. 2010): "[S]tatutes of limitation sought to be applied to bar rights of the Government, must receive a strict construction in favor of the Government." Badaracco v. Comm'r, 464 U.S. 386, 391, 104 S. Ct. 756, 78 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1984) (quotation omitted); accord SEC v. Mohn, 465 F.3 ...
From United States v. Rebelo, 394 Fed. Appx. 850 (3d Cir. 2010): “[S]tatutes of limitation sought to be applied to bar rights of the Government, must receive a strict construction in favor of the Government.” Badaracco v. Comm’r, 464 U.S.…
Continue Reading

Assignee Standing — Constitutional Standing

From Perkumpulan Inv. Crisis Center v. Regal Fin. Bancorp, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16132 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2011): Plaintiff commenced this case after the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on the law of assignee standing, Sprint Communications Company v. APCC Services, 554 U.S. 269 (2008). The Supreme Court fundamentally alte ...
From Perkumpulan Inv. Crisis Center v. Regal Fin. Bancorp, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16132 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 17, 2011): Plaintiff commenced this case after the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion on the law of assignee standing, Sprint Communications Company…
Continue Reading

No Requirement of Daubert Hearing If Movant Does Not Present Opposing Expert Evidence — Instruction to Disregard Infirm Expert Evidence Suffices to Avoid Mistrial Absent Undue Prejudice

From United States v. Bachynsky, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3377 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2011): There is no requirement that a Daubert hearing always be held. See United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004); Hansen, 262 F.3d at 1234. As is well known, the trial court's obligation under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 ...
From United States v. Bachynsky, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3377 (11th Cir. Feb. 18, 2011): There is no requirement that a Daubert hearing always be held. See United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004); Hansen, 262…
Continue Reading

Sanctions Motion that Requires Reference to Dismissal Motion for Details of Frivolousness Fails Specificity Requirement of Rule 11 — At Least in the Absence of Explicit Incorporation by Reference

From Miller v. Saint Felix, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2617 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011) (decided under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, which is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11): In its entirety, the sanctions motion read as follows: 1. The factual and legal assertions set forth in the Plaintiff's compl ...
From Miller v. Saint Felix, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2617 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011) (decided under Bankruptcy Rule 9011, which is substantially identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11): In its entirety, the sanctions motion read as follows:…
Continue Reading

Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege Protects Communications with Unlicensed Counselor at Sex Abuse Clinic Who Works under the Supervision of a Licensed Social Worker

From Richardson v. Sexual Assault Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822 (D. Md. Feb. 8, 2011): This Memorandum and Order addresses the claims of privilege that counsel for Defendants Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc. ("SARC"), Luiza Caiazzo-Nutter, and Stephanie Powers made at the December 7, 201 ...
From Richardson v. Sexual Assault Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12822 (D. Md. Feb. 8, 2011): This Memorandum and Order addresses the claims of privilege that counsel for Defendants Sexual Assault/Spouse Abuse Resource Center, Inc. (“SARC”),…
Continue Reading
Previous352353354355356357358Next

Recent Posts

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

While Rule 11 Doesn’t Apply to Appellate Proceedings (Unless It Has Been Incorporated in Local Appellate Rules), Rule 11 Caselaw Is Looked to for Guidance in Interpreting Applicable Sanctions Powers on Appeal

Rule 11 Sanctions & Appellate Review: Abuse of Discretion Standard Applies Unless Sanctions Are Based Solely (Not Just in Part) on Legal Issues, in Which Case Review Is De Novo

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

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