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 — Refusal to Prepare Witness for Trial as Akin to Spoliation — Adaptation of Pattern Spoliation Instruction Upheld

From Hayes v. Claimants Landscape Mgmt., Inc., 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2566 (Cal. App. Mar. 30, 2009): As trial was about to begin, respondent's counsel advised appellant that Vega [a key witness] was no longer employed by respondent and that respondent would not be producing him for trial. Appellant moved to strike respondent's answ ...
From Hayes v. Claimants Landscape Mgmt., Inc., 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2566 (Cal. App. Mar. 30, 2009): As trial was about to begin, respondent’s counsel advised appellant that Vega [a key witness] was no longer employed by respondent and…
Continue Reading

Civil RICO Claim Arising out of Ponzi Scheme Precluded by PSLRA Bar — Criminal Conviction Exception Limited to the Person Convicted

From Smith v. Copeland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51157 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2010): Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of a $ 40 million Ponzi scheme orchestrated primarily by Defendant Robert Copeland who pled guilty to criminal charges. Plaintiffs contend that Copeland and his "Salesperson Defendants" defrauded investors by selling sham ...
From Smith v. Copeland, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51157 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2010): Plaintiffs allege that they are victims of a $ 40 million Ponzi scheme orchestrated primarily by Defendant Robert Copeland who pled guilty to criminal charges. Plaintiffs…
Continue Reading

Order for New Trial Based on Misconduct of Counsel Does Not Constitute Appealable Sanctions Order — Circuit Split as to Whether and When Order Containing Criticism Comprises a Sanction

From In re Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11368 (6th Cir. 2010), a contentious employment discrimination action: 2. Attorney sanctions as a basis to appeal Metro's alternative contention is that we have jurisdiction over this case because the district court's order amount ...
From In re Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11368 (6th Cir. 2010), a contentious employment discrimination action: 2. Attorney sanctions as a basis to appeal Metro’s alternative contention is that we have jurisdiction…
Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Applies American Pipe to Opt-In Class Actions in Court of Federal Claims — Circuit Split on Opt-In Classes and American Pipe

From Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2010): [W]e hold that when a class action complaint is filed in the Court of Federal Claims and class certification is sought prior to expiration of the section 2501 limitations period, the limitations period is tolled. The limitations period is tolled during the period the ...
From Bright v. United States, 603 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2010): [W]e hold that when a class action complaint is filed in the Court of Federal Claims and class certification is sought prior to expiration of the section…
Continue Reading

New Supreme Court Opinion on Relation Back of Amendments to Pleadings

Rule 15(c) determines when an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original filing. Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) requires that, within 120 days of filing, the later-named defendant "knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party's identity." The plaintiff in Krupski v. Costa Crocie ...
Rule 15(c) determines when an amended pleading relates back to the date of the original filing. Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) requires that, within 120 days of filing, the later-named defendant “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Hit-and-Run Abuse (Filing, then Withdrawing Claim) Protected from Sanction under Rule 11 by the 21-Day Safe Harbor

From Peer v. Lewis, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10296 (11th Cir. May 20, 2010): This case arises from yet another contentious Florida election. Initially, Jim Naugle, the incumbent mayor, and Lewis were the only candidates in the City of Fort Lauderdale's 2006 mayoral race, which, according to Lewis, increased Lewis' chance of success in the ...
From Peer v. Lewis, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10296 (11th Cir. May 20, 2010): This case arises from yet another contentious Florida election. Initially, Jim Naugle, the incumbent mayor, and Lewis were the only candidates in the City of Fort…
Continue Reading

Filing Complaint Barred by Statute of Limitations and Res Judicata (Affirmative Defenses) Violates Rule 11 Where Plaintiff Warned before Filing — Sanctions Usually Inapt for Appeals of Rule 11 Sanctions

From Huntsman v. Perry Local Schools Board of Educ., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10948 (6th Cir. May 28, 2010) (Unpublished): [T]he suit is clearly barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, so the dismissal was not in error. Additionally, counsel for Defendants notified Attorney Shenise prior to the filing of the complaint in th ...
From Huntsman v. Perry Local Schools Board of Educ., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10948 (6th Cir. May 28, 2010) (Unpublished): [T]he suit is clearly barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, so the dismissal was not in error.…
Continue Reading

RICO Injunctive Relief

From Townsend v. Chase Bank USA N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13116 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2009): Plaintiff's seventh claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). That statute allows district courts to enjoin future violations of RICO. Because Plaintiff's sixth claim for violations of RICO fails, his claim for dec ...
From Townsend v. Chase Bank USA N.A., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13116 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2009): Plaintiff’s seventh claim seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). That statute allows district courts to enjoin future violations of…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — State Legal Malpractice Claim Asserting Fiduciary Duty Theory Dependent on Manual of Patent Examination Procedure and C.F.R. Arises under Patent Law

From Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2010): On December 13, 2007, the district court *** imposed sanctions of $ 30,356.89 pursuant to Rule 11 against "Plaintiff's counsel." *** The court emphasized that Count VIII "attempted to manufacture a federal cause of action by couching a garden-variety ...
From Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456 (Fed. Cir. May 24, 2010): On December 13, 2007, the district court *** imposed sanctions of $ 30,356.89 pursuant to Rule 11 against “Plaintiff’s counsel.” *** The court emphasized…
Continue Reading

Order Allowing Party to Wear a “Disguise, Mask and/or Costume” at Videotaped Deposition Overturned

From Bertrand v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778 (M.D. Tenn. May 28, 2010): *** Defendants ask this Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge's Order *** which refuses to prohibit Plaintiff from wearing a disguise, mask and/or costume during his videotaped deposition.... The Court can, without a doubt, state that this i ...
From Bertrand v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52778 (M.D. Tenn. May 28, 2010): *** Defendants ask this Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge’s Order *** which refuses to prohibit Plaintiff from wearing a disguise, mask and/or costume…
Continue Reading
Previous380381382383384385386Next

Recent Posts

RICO Causation: Parents of Children with Disabilities Deprived In-Person Education and Services during the Pandemic Were Not Causally Injured by Teachers’ False Assurances to Federal Authorities That IDEA-Complaint Policies Were in Place, Which Caused Funds to Issue But Not to the Benefit of the Disabled Children — Damages Too Indirect — Proper Plaintiff Is U.S. Government — Private Injunctive Relief Under RICO Uncertain in Third Circuit

Sanctions: Rule 37(b)(2) Dismissal — Sixth Circuit Factors

Inherent Power Sanctions — Extrajudicial Misconduct: Sanctions Power Extends to Conduct Intended to Sabotage Court’s Ability to Adjudicate the Case Before It, Here, By Commencing State Court Actions Seeking to Enjoin the Federal Plaintiffs from Proceeding with Their Federal Litigation — Sanctions Fee Awards: The Factors Used For Calculating A Fee Award To A Prevailing Party Do Not Govern — Under Goodyear, the Relevant Inquiry Is Whether There Is A Sufficient Causal Link Between The Sanctioned Misconduct And The Fees Awarded

RICO: Members of Association-in-Fact Enterprise Must Act with a Common Purpose—Mere Allegation That Various Defendants Agreed at Different Times to Engage in Various Fraudulent Schemes Does Not Plausibly Support the Essential Inference, That They Acted with s Sufficiently Common Purpose

RICO Causation: (1) State’s Misrepresentation to Federal Government That It Was Providing Plaintiffs with Mandated Special Education Did Not Cause Plaintiffs’ Injury Because The Failure to Provide The Education Was Not Caused by the Fraud on the Federal Government — (2) The Three Factors for Assessing RICO Causation — (3) Limits of the Second Circuit’s Decision in Alix v. McKinsey That Causation Can Be Established Where A Fraud On The Judiciary “Or Other Governmental Entity” Resulted In A Resource Going To Someone Less Deserving

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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