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

Rule 11 Sanctions: Error to Award Attorney’s Fees Sua Sponte Or to Issue Any Sanction on Withdrawn Claim — Can’t Seek Leave to Amend after Judgment Entered without Also Moving to Set Aside Judgment

Wolfington v. Reconstructive Ortho. Assocs. II PC, 2019 US App Lexis 24770 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019): This is an appeal from the District Court's entry of judgment on the pleadings against appellant-plaintiff Andrew Wolfington on his claim under the Truth in Lending Act
Wolfington v. Reconstructive Ortho. Assocs. II PC, 2019 US App Lexis 24770 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2019): This is an appeal from the District Court's entry of judgment on the pleadings against appellant-plaintiff Andrew Wolfington on his claim under the …
Continue Reading

RICO Statute of Limitations Not Tolled by Defendants’ Refusal to Concede (& Allegedly Lying about) Misconduct — No Equitable Tolling If Plaintiff in Fact Aware of Misconduct

 Bernegger v. Dep't of Revenue, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26395 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Peter Bernegger cha ...
Bernegger v. Dep't of Revenue, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26395 (5th Cir. Aug. 30, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Peter Bernegger challenges the dismissal of his claims against two Mississippi Department of Revenue employees in their individual capacities. Because…
Continue Reading

Specific Personal Jurisdiction Is Claim-Specific — First-to-File Rule (Factors) and Anticipatory Declaratory Judgment Exception — DJ Actions (Factors As to Appropriateness)

J.M. Smucker Co. v. Promotion in Motion, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193896 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2019): Currently pending is Defendant Promotion in Motion's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 14 ...
J.M. Smucker Co. v. Promotion in Motion, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193896 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 7, 2019): Currently pending is Defendant Promotion in Motion's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 14.) Plaintiff J.M. Smucker Company filed a Brief…
Continue Reading

R. 11 Sanctions for Disqualification Motion—DQ Apt Only If Lesser Remedies Unavailable — Factors for Advocate Witness DQ — Type, # of Violations Guide Sanction — Papers “More About Vitriol … Than Fact Or Legal Principle” (Good Quotes)

Finley Grp., Liquidating Agent For RedF Mktg., LLC v. Roselli (In re RedF Mktg., LLC), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3311 (W.D.N.C. Bankr. Oct. 21, 2019): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND GRANTING MOTION ...
Finley Grp., Liquidating Agent For RedF Mktg., LLC v. Roselli (In re RedF Mktg., LLC), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 3311 (W.D.N.C. Bankr. Oct. 21, 2019): ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISQUALIFY AND GRANTING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS This matter is before the Court…
Continue Reading

Removal: Is Denial of Request for Admission That Claim Doesn’t Exceed $75,000 Sufficient to Establish Amount in Controversy? — Case Law Split — Settlement Offer Over $75K Can Be “Other Paper” Supporting Removal

Streicher v. Sam's East, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34052 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2019): Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court. (Doc. 4.) For the following reasons, the Court con ...
Streicher v. Sam's East, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34052 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2019): Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to State Court. (Doc. 4.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that Defendant's removal was timely…
Continue Reading

Appeals: Party with Prejudgment Certification to Appeal Must File Petition in 10 Days — District Court Can’t Reenter or Recertify to Restart Clock — 10-Day Period Is Set in Statute, Is Jurisdictional, Not Claims-Processing

 Groves v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31974 ((7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019): When a district court certifies an order for review before final judgment, parties have only ten days to petition us to ...
Groves v. United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 31974 ((7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2019): When a district court certifies an order for review before final judgment, parties have only ten days to petition us to hear the interlocutory appeal. Decades …
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Not Substantively Addressing District Court’s Reasoning — Vexatious Litigant Injunction on Appeal Per Inherent Power & All Writs Act — Good Quote on Pro Se Status Not Insulating Party from Clogging Courts with Meritless Case

Henneberger v. Ticom Geomatics, Inc., 2019 WL 5688237 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2019) (unpublished):*1 Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss this appeal as frivolous, award the moving defendants-appellees1 costs in the amount of their atto ...
Henneberger v. Ticom Geomatics, Inc., 2019 WL 5688237 (5th Cir. Nov. 1, 2019) (unpublished):*1 Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss this appeal as frivolous, award the moving defendants-appellees1 costs in the amount of their attorney …
Continue Reading

Disqualification of Experts (2-Part Test) vs. Lawyers (2 Scenarios) — Courts Presume That Lawyers, But Not Experts, Received Confidential Information — Judicial Docs Presumptively Public Even If Not Relied on

 Homeward Residential, Inc., Solely in Its Capacity As Master Servicer for the Option One Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-2 ex rel. Tr. & the Holders of Option One Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-2 Certificates, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189285 (S.D ...
Homeward Residential, Inc., Solely in Its Capacity As Master Servicer for the Option One Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-2 ex rel. Tr. & the Holders of Option One Mortg. Loan Trust 2006-2 Certificates, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189285 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31,…
Continue Reading

Bankruptcy Courts Have Power to Issue at Least Relatively Minor, Non-Compensatory Inherent Power Sanctions — Power Derived Not from Art. III But from Nature of Federal Judicial Institutions — Appeals Court Must Assess Jurisdiction of Lower Courts

Rosellini v. United States Bankr. Ct. (In re Sanchez), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32462 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2019): Per Curiam. In September 2013, Appellant Kenneth Rosellini filed a Chapter 7 petition in the U ...
Rosellini v. United States Bankr. Ct. (In re Sanchez), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32462 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2019): Per Curiam. In September 2013, Appellant Kenneth Rosellini filed a Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions May Be Imposed on Lawyer for Violation of Court Order (Failure to Appear, Prosecute) Or Other Misconduct Not Undertaken for the Client’s Benefit without a Showing of Bad Faith (2d Cir.)

In re Sanchez (Rosellini v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court), 2019 WL 5596472 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the district court dated May 19, 2017, and February 6, 2018, are AFFIRMED. App ...
In re Sanchez (Rosellini v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court), 2019 WL 5596472 (2d Cir. Oct. 30, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the district court dated May 19, 2017, and…
Continue Reading
Previous38394041424344Next

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