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

The Garrulous Plaintiff — Admissibility of Lay Opinion that Defendant Is Blameless

There was a gas explosion that damaged the plaintiffs’ van while the defendant service station was refilling the van’s propane tank. The plaintiffs later drove the van back to Quebec, junked it, and then sued, leading the Court in St. Cyr v. Flying-J, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64156 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 30, 2007), to conclude that it would issue an adverse- ...
There was a gas explosion that damaged the plaintiffs’ van while the defendant service station was refilling the van’s propane tank. The plaintiffs later drove the van back to Quebec, junked it, and then sued, leading the Court in St.…
Continue Reading

Punitive Damages Post-Philip Morris — & Raising Issues for First Time in Reply Brief

The plaintiff won a $1.65 million compensatory award plus $10 million in punitive damages, in Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20959 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2007). The principal issue on appeal was whether the jury was properly instructed on punitive damages in light of Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007) — spe ...
The plaintiff won a $1.65 million compensatory award plus $10 million in punitive damages, in Merrick v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20959 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2007). The principal issue on appeal was whether the…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege — Waiver by Diary

The plaintiff produced redacted diary entries in response to a document request served on her in Harper v. Brinke, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64482 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2007). The defendant moved to compel the redacted portions, claiming that plaintiff waived her attorney-client privilege by memorializing the privileged communications in her diary. Held by Magis ...
The plaintiff produced redacted diary entries in response to a document request served on her in Harper v. Brinke, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64482 (E.D. Tenn. Aug. 30, 2007). The defendant moved to compel the redacted portions, claiming that plaintiff…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Theft and Concealment of Documents — Counsel vs. Client

Plaintiff’s counsel in Wade v. Soo Line R.R., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20617 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2007), acted sanctionably — withholding damaging medical records and perhaps stealing some of them back from defense counsel at a deposition. The District Court imposed $110,000 in sanctions, an amount equivalent to the defendant’s fees and costs for the entire ...
Plaintiff’s counsel in Wade v. Soo Line R.R., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20617 (7th Cir. Aug. 29, 2007), acted sanctionably — withholding damaging medical records and perhaps stealing some of them back from defense counsel at a deposition. The District…
Continue Reading

New Pleading Article and Updated Internet/Email Article on Recent Articles Page

A new article analyzing the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which has been cited in more than 980 decisions since it was decided on May 21, 2007, has been posted today on the Recent Articles page (title: "Supreme Court Rewrites Pleading Rules"). The article entitled "Internet and Email Evidence" has been updated as of September ...
A new article analyzing the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which has been cited in more than 980 decisions since it was decided on May 21, 2007, has been posted today on the Recent Articles page…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — 28 U.S.C. § 1927 — Acting as Counsel without Formally Appearing

28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by the court to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of s ...
28 U.S.C. § 1927 provides: Any attorney or other person admitted to conduct cases in any court of the United States or any Territory thereof who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously may be required by…
Continue Reading

Expert Evidence — Federal v. State Rules — Diversity Action

In a personal injury action governed by Alabama law, Long v. Raymond Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20493 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007), the losing plaintiff argued on appeal that the district court erroneously applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (and thus federal Daubert standards), rather than Rule 601 (and more lenient Alabama rules of competency), when i ...
In a personal injury action governed by Alabama law, Long v. Raymond Corp., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 20493 (11th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007), the losing plaintiff argued on appeal that the district court erroneously applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Attempting to Dissuade Non-Party Witness from Testifying

On August 21, 2007, a federal judge in St. Louis imposed sanctions on a party for entering into a settlement agreement that precluded a third party witness from testifying at trial (see our post of August 25, 2007). Two days later, on August 23, District Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District of New York imposed a formal reprimand and attorneys' fe ...
On August 21, 2007, a federal judge in St. Louis imposed sanctions on a party for entering into a settlement agreement that precluded a third party witness from testifying at trial (see our post of August 25, 2007). Two days…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Timeliness of Motion — Rule 11 vs. Inherent Power

The moving defendant in Tojas v. Theobald, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62321 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007), did not file his Rule 11 motion until after he had prevailed on the merits at trial. At that point, it was impossible for the plaintiff to withdraw any allegedly frivolous claims. That meant that the plaintiff could not, by definition, take advantage of the 21-d ...
The moving defendant in Tojas v. Theobald, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62321 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2007), did not file his Rule 11 motion until after he had prevailed on the merits at trial. At that point, it was impossible for…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Pro Se Litigants

There is some confusion in the case law as to whether there is a split in the Circuits concerning whether § 1927 authorizes the imposition of sanctions on pro se litigants, as reflected, e.g., in the recent decision in Wallace v. Kelley, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56472 (D. Neb. Aug. 1, 2007), which (i) cites Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3 ...
There is some confusion in the case law as to whether there is a split in the Circuits concerning whether § 1927 authorizes the imposition of sanctions on pro se litigants, as reflected, e.g., in the recent decision in Wallace…
Continue Reading
Previous486487488489490491492Next

Recent Posts

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(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

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