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

RICO Extortion: Hobbs Act Requires Plaintiff Part with $ — Not Enough to Claim Right to $ Def Possesses — “Wrongful” Requires Def Have No Lawful Claim to $ in Dispute — Market Power Alone Doesn’t Invalidate Contract Freely Entered (Good Quote)

Crawford's Auto Ctr. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37964, 2019 WL 6974428 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019): *1 Plaintiffs Crawford’s Auto Center, Inc. and K & ...
Crawford's Auto Ctr. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 37964, 2019 WL 6974428 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2019): *1 Plaintiffs Crawford’s Auto Center, Inc. and K & M Collision, LLC are two auto body …
Continue Reading

Spoliation Sanctions: Seventh Circuit Requires Bad Faith Based on Pre-37(e) Case Law, While Citing Rule 37(e) Which Does Not Require It — Is a Video “Electronically-Stored Information?”

 Conner v. Rubin-Asch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32880 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2019) (unpublished): Eric Conner, a Wisconsin inmate, sued a prison psychologist and eight correctional officers for retaliation and delibe ...
Conner v. Rubin-Asch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32880 (7th Cir. Nov. 4, 2019) (unpublished): Eric Conner, a Wisconsin inmate, sued a prison psychologist and eight correctional officers for retaliation and deliberate indifference because they removed him from clinical observation, despite…
Continue Reading

12(b)(6) Dismissal Motion: Judicial Notice of News Reports & Non-Official Websites, including YouTube & Wikipedia, Only to Establish What Was in Public Realm, Not for Truth — Motion Converted to SJ to Consider Truth

Strojnik v. Azul Hosp. Grp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207424 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2019): Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, but he is licensed as an attorney in the state of California; pre-tri ...
Strojnik v. Azul Hosp. Grp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207424 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2019): Plaintiff is proceeding in this matter pro se, but he is licensed as an attorney in the state of California; pre-trial proceedings are accordingly referred to …
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment: Mere Denial of Statement of Undisputed Fact (SUF) without Actually Rejecting Paragraphs Responded to Properly Deemed Admissions — Attempt to Create Appearance of Factual Disputes = Sanctionalbe Non-Compliance with SUF Local Rule

Rau v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6358755 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (non-precedential): *1 Appellant Rau claims that Allstate handled her underinsured motorist claim in bad faith, in violation of
Rau v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6358755 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (non-precedential): *1 Appellant Rau claims that Allstate handled her underinsured motorist claim in bad faith, in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371. …
Continue Reading

Hague Service Convention Article 15 Applies Only to Service of Process on Non-Parties, Not to Service of Documents on Participant in Existing Action

 Lynch v. Mascini Holdings Ltd. (In re Kirwan Offices S.à.r.L.), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38068 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATIO ...
Lynch v. Mascini Holdings Ltd. (In re Kirwan Offices S.à.r.L.), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 38068 (2d Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Attorney’s Fees [Non-Sanctions] — American Rule Not Limited to Prevailing-Party Statutes — Absence of Specific Reference to Attorney’s Fees Not Dispositive — “Expenses of Litigation” = Expensae Litis = Costs

 Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 205 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2019): Sect ...
Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 205 L. Ed. 2d 304 (2019): Section 145 of the Patent Act affords applicants “dissatisfied with the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” an opportunity to file a civil action in the United States …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal OK Only If Violation of Discovery Order Is Fault of Client, Not Lawyer — Ordering Discovery Is Not A “Lesser Sanction” under Rule 41

 Johnson v. Jones, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36969 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Ron Johnson appeals the with-prejudice dism ...
Johnson v. Jones, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36969 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Ron Johnson appeals the with-prejudice dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit. The district court dismissed the case as a sanction under Federal Rules …
Continue Reading

Standing: In Consumer Fraud Case, Plaintiffs’ Claim They Wouldn’t Have Bought Product But for Deceptive Claims and Failure to Disclose Known Risks Constitutes Injury in Fact for Standing Purposes

Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 v. Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd., 2019 WL 6498270 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019): MEMORANDUM** *1 Plaintiffs, individual patients and third-party payor Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, appeal the ...
Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 v. Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd., 2019 WL 6498270 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019): MEMORANDUM** *1 Plaintiffs, individual patients and third-party payor Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund, appeal…
Continue Reading

§ 1782: Availability of Requested Information in Foreign Jurisdiction Irrelevant If Person from Whom Discovery Is Sought Is Unavailable There — Indicia of Sufficient Certainty of Contemplated Foreign Proceeding (Affidavit of Foreign Counsel Suffices)

 In re Top Matrix Holdings Ltd. for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210264 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2019): Top Matrix Holdings Ltd. (& ...
In re Top Matrix Holdings Ltd. for an Order to Take Discovery for Use in a Foreign Proceeding Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210264 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2019): Top Matrix Holdings Ltd. ("Top Matrix" or…
Continue Reading

RICO: Third-Party Payers Adequately Allege Causation Against Pharma Mfrs. for Omission of Known Safety Risk — Doctors Are Intermediaries But Not Intervening Cause — Circuit Split

Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Takeda Pharms. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35844 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019): Today we confront an issue of first impression in our circuit, and ...
Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Takeda Pharms. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35844 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2019): Today we confront an issue of first impression in our circuit, and one that has caused …
Continue Reading
Previous34353637383940Next

Recent Posts

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

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

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