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

Unsolicited Email to Lawyer Whose Website Doesn’t Encourage Submission of Confidential Info Doesn’t Create Prospective Client Relationship Warranting Disqualification — Efficacy of Screens — Good Quotes Anti-Disqualification

Mihuti v. Mid Am. Clinical Labs., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207179 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 2, 2019): I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Layla Christina Mihuti's ...
Mihuti v. Mid Am. Clinical Labs., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207179 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 2, 2019): I. Introduction This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Layla Christina Mihuti's motion to disqualify Defendant Mid America Clinical Laboratories, LLC (MACL)'s…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Not to Deter Cases of First Impression (Good Quote) — Position Not Frivolous Even If Only (Non-Controlling) Circuit Decision Is to Contrary — Loss on Summary Judgment ≠ Sanctionable

Rule 11 Sanctions Not to Deter Cases of First Impression (Good Quote) — Position Not Frivolous Even If Only Circuit to Decide Issue Came Out Other Way — Loss on Summary Judgment ≠ Sanctionable  Lewis v. Hi ...
Rule 11 Sanctions Not to Deter Cases of First Impression (Good Quote) — Position Not Frivolous Even If Only Circuit to Decide Issue Came Out Other Way — Loss on Summary Judgment ≠ Sanctionable  Lewis v. Hiday & Ricke, P.A., …
Continue Reading

Disqualification: Ex-Govt. Lawyers & Rule 1.11 — Meaning of “Matter,” “Personal & Substantial Participation” (1.11(a)) — Rule 1.9(a) Ousted by Rule 1.11 — Govt. Filing Doc in Court Means It’s Not Confidential Govt. Info

 Martley v. City of Basehor, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206058 (D. Kan. Nov. 27, 2019): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On October 9, 2019, the Court convened a motion hearing to addre ...
Martley v. City of Basehor, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206058 (D. Kan. Nov. 27, 2019): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On October 9, 2019, the Court convened a motion hearing to address Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Patrick Reavey as Plaintiff's Counsel (ECF …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunction Should Be Sought in District Court in First Instance — Circuit-Wide Filing Injunction OK If Multiple Courts, Claims Have Been Raised

 Clements v. 3M Elec. Monitoring, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35220 (115h Cir. Nov.25, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Louis Clements, proceeding pro se, sued 3M Electronic Monitoring (" ...
Clements v. 3M Elec. Monitoring, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35220 (115h Cir. Nov.25, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Louis Clements, proceeding pro se, sued 3M Electronic Monitoring ("3M")1 in federal court alleging that an ankle-monitoring bracelet 3M manufactured was …
Continue Reading

Doubts Resolved in Favor of Disqualification But Movant’s Burden Is Heavy — Substantially Related = (1) Received Confidential Info Usable against Ex-Client Or (2) Facts of Old Representation Are Relevant to New

 Fragoso v. Piao, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175523 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2019): This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Zhejun Piao ("Piao"), Miyeon Choi ("Choi"), and Massage 4 ...
Fragoso v. Piao, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175523 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2019): This matter comes before the Court upon Defendants Zhejun Piao ("Piao"), Miyeon Choi ("Choi"), and Massage 4 All NJ 7, LLC's (the "business") (collectively, "Defendants") Motion to Disqualify …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Public Records and Government Documents from Reliable Sources on the Internet

 Coleman v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194562 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2019): 1 See United States v. Coleman, No. 1:07-CR-233 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2019). Public reco ...
Coleman v. Detroit Metro. Airport, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194562 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8, 2019): 1 See United States v. Coleman, No. 1:07-CR-233 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 25, 2019). Public records and government documents, including those available from reliable sources on …
Continue Reading

Court of Appeals Always Reluctant to Create Circuit Split, Especially In Bankruptcy Law, Which Requires Uniformity

 Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C. v. Ad Hoc Comm. (In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35489 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019): ON PETITION FOR REHEARING ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge:
Keystone Gas Gathering, L.L.C. v. Ad Hoc Comm. (In re Ultra Petroleum Corp.), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 35489 (5th Cir. Nov. 26, 2019): ON PETITION FOR REHEARING ANDREW S. OLDHAM, Circuit Judge: Treating the Appellees' and Intervenors' Joint Petition for…
Continue Reading

Appeals: District Court’s Interpretation of Local Rules Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — D.Ct. May Disregard Counterstatement of Undisputed Facts As Not Contemplated by Rule Requiring Statement of Undisputed Facts on Summary Judgment

Rau v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6358755 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Appellant Rau claims that Allstate handled her underinsured motorist claim in bad faith, in violation of
Rau v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2019 WL 6358755 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Appellant Rau claims that Allstate handled her underinsured motorist claim in bad faith, in violation of 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371.…
Continue Reading

Facebook/Social Media Authentication — West Virginia Adopts Liberal, Circumstantial Evidence Approach — Testimony from Conversant, Witness to Party Sending or Receiving, or Distinctive Characteristics Sufficient

 State v. Benny W., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 487 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. of App. Oct. 18, 2019): This appeal was brought by Benny W. (hereinafter "Petitioner") from the April 4, 2018, order of the Circuit Court ...
State v. Benny W., 2019 W. Va. LEXIS 487 (W. Va. Sup. Ct. of App. Oct. 18, 2019): This appeal was brought by Benny W. (hereinafter "Petitioner") from the April 4, 2018, order of the Circuit Court of Ritchie County…
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

Securities:  Judicial Notice (JN) of Wayback Machine OK — Improper for Defs. to Use JN to Insert Own Version of Events to Defeat Well-Pled Claims — JN of Transcripts for Acts, Not Substance, & 10b5-1 Plan Only for Fact Sales Made Thereunder
Securities:  Judicial Notice (JN) of Wayback Machine OK — Improper for Defs. to Use JN to Insert Own Version of Events to Defeat Well-Pled Claims — JN of Transcripts for Acts, Not Substance, & 10b5-1 Plan Only for Fact Sales …
Continue Reading
Previous36373839404142Next

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