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

Sanctions: Bad Faith Irrelevant to Rule 11 Liability but Relevant to Type and Quantum of Sanction

From Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12068 (1st Cir. June 14, 2010): On January 25, 2008, the bankruptcy court ordered Ameriquest to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011 [substantively identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11] for misrepresenting during the Nosek bankrup ...
From Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Nosek, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12068 (1st Cir. June 14, 2010): On January 25, 2008, the bankruptcy court ordered Ameriquest to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Properly Imposed on Non-Parties Responsible for the Violation but Sanctions May Not Include the Fees Incurred in the (Month-Long) Sanctions Proceeding

Orange Blossom LP v. So. Calif. Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 608 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2010): Thirteen entities filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against IBT International, Inc. (IBT) and Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc. (SCSD) under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 303. The [13] petitioning creditors are *** co ...
Orange Blossom LP v. So. Calif. Sunbelt Developers, Inc., 608 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2010): Thirteen entities filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against IBT International, Inc. (IBT) and Southern California Sunbelt Developers, Inc. (SCSD) under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code,…
Continue Reading

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
Previous382383384385386387388Next

Recent Posts

RICO: Release Executed After Alleged RICO Violations Extinguishes RICO Claim — Eighth Circuit Declines to Address Enforceability of A Release “That Is An Integral Part of An Alleged RICO Scheme Or That Immunizes Future RICO Conduct

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice