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

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 LEXIS 36969 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Ron Johnson appeals the with-prejudice dism ...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 LEXIS 36969 (5th Cir. Dec. 13, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Ron Johnson appeals the with-prejudice dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit.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

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
Previous35363738394041Next

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