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

Court Lacks Inherent Power to Vacate §1782 Order Based on Fraud in Foreign Proceedings[— Rule 60(b)(3) Fraud on Court Must Be Extrinsic to Proceedings — 1782 Court Should Consider Effect on Procedural Parity of Parties (Good Quote)

 In re Accent Delight Int'l, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212773 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2019): This case is a small part of a larger international saga involving Accent Delight International Ltd. and Xitrans Financ ...
In re Accent Delight Int'l, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212773 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2019): This case is a small part of a larger international saga involving Accent Delight International Ltd. and Xitrans Finance Ltd. ("Petitioners") and their principal, Dmitry Rybolovlev,…
Continue Reading

Securities: Judicial Notice (JN) of Wayback Machine OK — Defs. Can’t Use JN to Insert Own Version of Events to Defeat Well-Pled Claims — JN of Transcripts for Acts, Not Substance, & of 10b5-1 Plan Only for Fact Sales Made Pursuant Thereto

In re Facebook, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166027 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019): This lawsuit stems from the revelation that Cambridge Analytica acquired the private Facebook data of millions of us ...
In re Facebook, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166027 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2019): This lawsuit stems from the revelation that Cambridge Analytica acquired the private Facebook data of millions of users and that, upon learning of this…
Continue Reading

Discovery Sanctions — Dismissal — Factors (6th Circuit)

 Blue v. City of River Rouge, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33242 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2019): Sexual Sin De Un Abdul Blue, a pro se Michigan litigant, appeals a district court order that (1) dismissed his complaint, as ...
 Blue v. City of River Rouge, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33242 (6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2019): Sexual Sin De Un Abdul Blue, a pro se Michigan litigant, appeals a district court order that (1) dismissed his complaint, as amended, for…
Continue Reading

Good Cause/Extraordinary Circs. Needed to Withdraw Consent to Magistrate Judge (§636(c)(4), Rule 73(b)(3)) Only After Adversary Consents, Else Is Discretionary — Decision of First Impression Doesn’t Change Law within Rule 60(b)(6), Is Retroactive

Parks v. Rohlfing, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210958 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2019): ORDER On September 30, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion to withdraw his consent to a magistrate judge. ECF ...
Parks v. Rohlfing, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210958 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2019): ORDER On September 30, 2018, the court denied plaintiff's motion to withdraw his consent to a magistrate judge. ECF No. 101. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of…
Continue Reading

Whether Claimant’s Arbitration Concerns Same Dispute As Respondent’s Prior Arbitration with Others & Thus Must Be Heard by Same Panel Is for New Panel to Decide — Court Cannot Prejudge It by Compelling Arbitration before Old Panel

Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. New Eng. Reinsurance Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36388 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* *This disposition is not an opinion of ...
Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. New Eng. Reinsurance Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 36388 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* *This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Filing Claim That Was Required To Be Asserted as Compulsory Counterclaim in Prior Action Is Frivolous, As Is Asserting As Grounds for Remand Argument Nearly Identical to One Earlier Rejected

Parnoff v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6271531 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. In 2011, the home of Donato Telesco and Anita Pettengill ...
Parnoff v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6271531 (2d Cir. Nov. 25, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. In 2011, the home …
Continue Reading

RICO: Injury to Credit Score Is Not RICO Injury to Business or Property

Injury to credit score is a “generalized reputational harm[ that is] too speculative to constitute an injury to business or property.”  Alphas Co. of New York Inc. v. Hunts Point Terminal, 2017 WL 1929506  at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2017).  Accord: Angermeier v. Cohen 14 F. Supp. 3d 134,152 (“an adverse entry in a ...
Injury to credit score is a “generalized reputational harm[ that is] too speculative to constitute an injury to business or property.”  Alphas Co. of New York Inc. v. Hunts Point Terminal, 2017 WL 1929506  at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 9, 2017). …
Continue Reading

State Defendant’s Removal to Federal Court Waives Eleventh Amendment Immunity from Suit on All Federal Law Claims As Well As State Law Claims

 Altamirano v. Cty. of Pima, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200372 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2019): Pending before the Court is Defendant Pima County's Motion to Stay Proceedings as to Defendant Pima County Pending Reso ...
Altamirano v. Cty. of Pima, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 200372 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2019): Pending before the Court is Defendant Pima County's Motion to Stay Proceedings as to Defendant Pima County Pending Resolution of Interlocutory Appeal. (Doc. 165.) Plaintiff…
Continue Reading

RICO Standing Requires “Concrete Financial Loss” to Business or Property

Talley v. Mazzocca, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35562 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Appellant Quintez Talley, proce ...
Talley v. Mazzocca, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35562 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Appellant Quintez Talley, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action against 24 defendants, including employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections…
Continue Reading

RICO: Party Who Signed Security Agreement on Promise Bank Wd Destroy It after Using It to Defraud Regulators Not Causally Harmed by Fraud on Regulators — Res Judicata (State Court Judgment for Bank) Bars RICO Claim vs Bank

 Devon Drive Lionville, LP v. Parke Bancorp, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31412 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 2019): Those who agree to deceive the government may find themselves deceived. The parties here were in real es ...
Devon Drive Lionville, LP v. Parke Bancorp, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31412 (3d Cir. Oct. 22, 2019): Those who agree to deceive the government may find themselves deceived. The parties here were in real estate together. Their business relationship…
Continue Reading
Previous35363738394041Next

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