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

Electronic Discovery — Presumption against Production of Metadata vs. Specific Need

From Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66238 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2009): Defendants do not object to the production of the information in their databases, just their metadata. *** Defendants rely upon Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. National Ass'n of Stock Car AutoRacing, Inc., 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. ...
From Ojeda-Sanchez v. Bland Farms, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66238 (S.D. Ga. July 31, 2009): Defendants do not object to the production of the information in their databases, just their metadata. *** Defendants rely upon Kentucky Speedway, LLC v.…
Continue Reading

In Multiparty Action, Supplemental Jurisdiction Retained over One Defendant as to Whom All Federal Claims Have Been Dismissed Where State Claims Are Related to the Federal Claims Against Other Defendants — PSLRA RICO Bar

From Armstrong v. Am. Pallet Leasing, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77138 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 26, 2009): The court is confronted in this case with a myriad of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as several state law ...
From Armstrong v. Am. Pallet Leasing, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77138 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 26, 2009): The court is confronted in this case with a myriad of claims brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), both…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction — Case Dismissed for Disclosing Document Produced Pursuant to “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” Agreement before Protective Order Entered — Irrelevant Whether the Document was Entitled to Protection Under Later-Entered Order

From Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Sys., Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19316 (7th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009): On June 24, defendants USA Funds, Sallie Mae, and ERS learned that a scanned copy of the confidential document containing the Guarantee Services Agreement between Sallie Mae and USA Funds had been posted on a website known as Wikileaks.or ...
From Salmeron v. Enterprise Recovery Sys., Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 19316 (7th Cir. Aug. 27, 2009): On June 24, defendants USA Funds, Sallie Mae, and ERS learned that a scanned copy of the confidential document containing the Guarantee Services…
Continue Reading

In New York State Court, Requesting Party Presumptively Must Bear the Cost of Electronic Discovery, Like All Other

From T.A. Ahern Contr. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 24 Misc. 3d 416, 875 N.Y.S.2d 862 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Mar. 19, 2009): Turning now to the issue of electronic discovery, New York courts have held that raw computer data or electronic documents are discoverable (see Lipco Elec. Corp. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 4 Misc ...
From T.A. Ahern Contr. Corp. v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 24 Misc. 3d 416, 875 N.Y.S.2d 862 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Mar. 19, 2009): Turning now to the issue of electronic discovery, New York courts have held that…
Continue Reading

Sanctions for Filing Claims Despite Prior Warnings and Court Orders — Recidivism — Client Who Could Not be Sanctioned for Frivolous Legal Claims Sanctioned for Improper Purpose — Prior Sanctions Award as a Benchmark

From Janky v. Batistatos, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66680 (N.D. Ind. July 31, 2009): [Ignoring Prior Warnings and Court Orders.] [Plaintiff] Janky and her counsel apparently became convinced that Defendant's arguments were bogus. But they were informed, many times, that this wasn't the case. In the face of those multiple order ...
From Janky v. Batistatos, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66680 (N.D. Ind. July 31, 2009): [Ignoring Prior Warnings and Court Orders.] [Plaintiff] Janky and her counsel apparently became convinced that Defendant’s arguments were bogus. But they were informed, many times, that…
Continue Reading

Attorneys’ Fees and Cost of Defense of RICO-Violative Prosecution Afford Standing, But Embarrassment, Humiliation and Inconvenience ≠ RICO Injury

Attorneys' Fees and Cost of Defense of RICO-Violative Prosecution Afford Standing, But Embarrassment, Humiliation and Inconvenience ≠ RICO Injury From Kilper v. City of Arnold, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63471 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2009): The Red Light Camera Ordinance. In June 2005, City passed Bill No. 2102 enacting the original Ord ...
Attorneys’ Fees and Cost of Defense of RICO-Violative Prosecution Afford Standing, But Embarrassment, Humiliation and Inconvenience ≠ RICO Injury From Kilper v. City of Arnold, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63471 (E.D. Mo. July 23, 2009): The Red Light Camera Ordinance.…
Continue Reading

Circumstantial Authentication of Email Evidence — Admission that Emails Were Sent + Content of Emails + Email Address Tied to Recipient by His Business Website

The defendant in United States v. Lane, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65828 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2009), was the second one scheduled for trial for conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The other defendant, Carman, had already been convicted of conspiracy to kidnap Lane’s ex-girlfriend, Kristi: The Government seeks to admit at trial emails found on C ...
The defendant in United States v. Lane, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65828 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2009), was the second one scheduled for trial for conspiracy to commit kidnapping. The other defendant, Carman, had already been convicted of conspiracy to…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Motion Served 4 Days Before Pending Summary Judgment Motion Granted Rejected Because 21-Day Safe Harbor Period Not Afforded

From Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16403 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2009): On May 20, 2003, four days after Citrix served Fink with its motion for sanctions, the district court granted Citrix's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.*** On June 19, 2003, Citrix filed its motion for sanctions under Rule 11 ...
From Orenshteyn v. Citrix Sys., Inc., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16403 (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2009): On May 20, 2003, four days after Citrix served Fink with its motion for sanctions, the district court granted Citrix’s motion for summary judgment…
Continue Reading

Email from Senior Agency Executive Admissible as Admission by a Party Opponent in Action against the Government

From Moreno v. United States, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 266 (Cl. Ct. July 27, 2009): The plaintiffs, current and former employees of the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and one former employee of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") (Arturo Moreno ("Mr. Moreno"), the named plaintiff in the ca ...
From Moreno v. United States, 2009 U.S. Claims LEXIS 266 (Cl. Ct. July 27, 2009): The plaintiffs, current and former employees of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) and one former employee of the United States Immigration and…
Continue Reading

Website Authentication — WHOis Search Held Inadequate to Prove Ownership of Website

From Nordica S.p.A. v. ICON Health & Fitness, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71385 (D.N.H. Aug. 11, 2009): The alleged printouts from nordictrack.com, although also inadmissible at present, are considerably further along the road toward admission. Nordica submits an affidavit from Chloe A. Hecht, ... as well as a WHOIS report showing that nordict ...
From Nordica S.p.A. v. ICON Health & Fitness, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71385 (D.N.H. Aug. 11, 2009): The alleged printouts from nordictrack.com, although also inadmissible at present, are considerably further along the road toward admission. Nordica submits an affidavit from…
Continue Reading
Previous412413414415416417418Next

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