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 Statute of Limitations — Notice of Injury vs. Fraudulent Concealment — Disregard of Prior Order as Tolling Statute

From Pecot v. S.F. Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21710 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009): Civil RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156 (1987). "The limitations period for civil RICO actions begins to run when a plaintiff know ...
From Pecot v. S.F. Deputy Sheriff’s Ass’n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21710 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2009): Civil RICO claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Assocs., Inc., 483 U.S. 143, 156…
Continue Reading

Dismissal as a Sanction — Factors — Sixth Circuit

From Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11626 (6th Cir. June 7, 2010): We have identified four factors — the "Regional Refuse factors" — that guide our review of a district court's decision to dismiss a party's lawsuit as a sanction: (1) whether the party's [conduct] [was] due to willfulness ...
From Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 11626 (6th Cir. June 7, 2010): We have identified four factors — the “Regional Refuse factors” — that guide our review of a district court’s decision to dismiss a party’s lawsuit…
Continue Reading

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
Previous383384385386387388389Next

Recent Posts

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Rule 37(b) Sanctions: Striking of Answer, Default Judgment, Civil Contempt and Piercing Corporate Veil for Deliberate Disregard of Multiple Orders to Produce — Finding of Deliberate Disregard of Court Order Is Factual, Triggering Clear Error Review — Discretion Narrows When Default Sanction Involved — Fourth Circuit Factors for Rule 37 Default Sanction Are Different Than Those for Inherent Power Dismissal Sanction — Continued Defiance of Court Orders And Millions in Unpaid Judgments And Tax Liens Render Lesser Sanctions Futile

RICO: No Causation for Company Harmed by Governmental Customers Shunning It After Employee Publishes Book Admitting He Bribed Governmental Officials — Harm Too Indirect, Not from Bribery (Predicate Act) But from Customers’ Decisions to Shun and Publication of Book (Both Lawful) — Customers Injured by Bribery of Their Officials Are More Direct Plaintiffs

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Opposition to Arbitration

Extrinsic Fraud Exception to Rooker-Feldman — Where Defendants’ Perjury, False Evidence, Flawed Legal Arguments Prevented Plaintiffs from Presenting Their Claim in State Court

Federal Jurisdiction: Party Can Waive Subject Matter Jurisdiction — While Federal Courts Must Ensure They Do Not Lack Subject Matter Jurisdiction, There Is No Duty to Find and Exercise It

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