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

Facebook Messages Sent from Another’s Account Authenticated by Self-Identification, References to Page Owner in Third Person, and Knowledge of Events Known Only to Recipient and Sender

 Graham v. State, 2019 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 898 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2019): P1 Tommy Graham ("Graham") was convicted in Jackson Circuit Court of two counts of Level 4 felony sexual mis ...
Graham v. State, 2019 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 898 (Ind. Ct. App. July 15, 2019): P1 Tommy Graham ("Graham") was convicted in Jackson Circuit Court of two counts of Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and one count …
Continue Reading

Facebook Live Video Authenticated Like Any Video — By Witness to Recorded Events or Operator or Maintainer of Equipment Testifying That Video Accurately Represents The Subject Matter Depicted And Has Not Been Tampered With

 People v Y.L., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3209 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. May 17, 2019): This decision supplements the oral decision of the Court rendered on March 21, 2019, in accordance with the Criminal Law of th ...
People v Y.L., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3209 (Sup. Ct. Monroe Cnty. May 17, 2019): This decision supplements the oral decision of the Court rendered on March 21, 2019, in accordance with the Criminal Law of the State of New…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f), 37 Sanctions — Default Judgment — Factors (6th Cir.) — May a Party Appeal a Default Judgment without First Moving to Vacate It under Rule 60(b)? (Circuit Split) — Due Process & Default Judgments—What “Due Process” Meant in 1354

Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation, Inc. v. Larson, 201 ...
Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation, Inc. v. Larson, 2019 WL 3024726 (6th Cir. July 11, 2019): *1 After four years of perpetual delays, Prime Rate Premium Finance Corporation obtained a sixth trial date to vindicate its claims that Karen Larson …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power (IHP) / R. 37 Discovery Sanctions for False Dep., Hiding Facts: Precluding Claims, Equitable Relief & Defenses, Fees — Factors for IHP/R. 37 Sanctions — and for Reassigning Case to Different Judge on Remand

Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23134, 2019 WL 3493900 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2019) (unpublished): The heart of the parties' dispute i ...
Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23134, 2019 WL 3493900 (4th Cir. Aug. 1, 2019) (unpublished): The heart of the parties' dispute in this case is the ownership status of a trademark, "WINGS," which…
Continue Reading

Experts/Daubert: “The Expert Feeling Comfortable, without More, Is Not a Sound Methodology under Daubert” (Good Quote) — “High Threshold” to Exclude Expert for Conflict or Bias — Complete Lack of Bias Not Required

 Aigner El Ansari v. Graham, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129997 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019): Defendants New York and Presbyterian Hospital ("Hospital") and Bridget Graham move to preclude testimony by Plaint ...
Aigner El Ansari v. Graham, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129997 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2019): Defendants New York and Presbyterian Hospital ("Hospital") and Bridget Graham move to preclude testimony by Plaintiff Aigner El Ansari's expert, Dr. Yaakov Siegel. Dr. Siegel's report…
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions — Withdrawal of Frivolous Claims after Causing Fees to Be Incurred No Defense (No Safe Harbor from §1927 Sanctions)

Davis v. Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 2019 WL 3543170 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2019): *1 As the French proverb goes, “[i]f you’ve a good case, try to compromise; if a bad one, take it into court.” H.L. Mencken, A New Dictionary of Quotations 665 (19th prtg. 2001). Plaintiffs R ...
Davis v. Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth., 2019 WL 3543170 (6th Cir. Aug. 5, 2019): *1 As the French proverb goes, “[i]f you’ve a good case, try to compromise; if a bad one, take it into court.” H.L. Mencken, A New…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Safe Harbor — It Is the Burden of the Party against Whom Sanctions Are Sought to Prove Non-Compliance with Safe Harbor, Not the Burden of Movant to Prove Compliance

Darnell v. Arthur, 2019 WL 3451649 (6th Cir. July 31, 2019) (unpublished): Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor on her tortious-interference-with-business-relations and civil-conspiracy claims. Defendants cross appeal the district court’s refusal to impose Rule 11 sanctions. Addit ...
Darnell v. Arthur, 2019 WL 3451649 (6th Cir. July 31, 2019) (unpublished): Plaintiff appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor on her tortious-interference-with-business-relations and civil-conspiracy claims. Defendants cross appeal the district court’s refusal to impose Rule…
Continue Reading

Sanctions — Gov’t Counsel’s Secretly Reading Inmates’ Communications with Counsel, Even after Bar Ethics Counsel Advised Stopping and Alerting Court, Violates Inherent Power and §1927 — “When in Doubt, Ask the Court” (Good Quote)

Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) (Note: The 1992 adn 1994ABA opinions cited in this decision have since been replaced by Model Rule 4.4(b), which is reprinted after the citations an ...
Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001) (Note: The 1992 adn 1994ABA opinions cited in this decision have since been replaced by Model Rule 4.4(b), which is reprinted after the citations and quotations of the 1992 and…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Expert Exclusion for Inadequate 26(a)(2)(A) Disclosures “So Generic, Unhelpful & Boilerplate They Could Apply to Virtually Any Case” (Good Quote)

 Torrez v. D. Las Vegas, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21524 (9th Cir. July 19, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Gregory John Torrez appeals the distric ...
Torrez v. D. Las Vegas, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21524 (9th Cir. July 19, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Gregory John Torrez appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of D. Las Vegas, Inc. and Edgar Vinicio Vallejo…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Expert Exclusion — Scheduling Order Violation — When Only One Report Timely Submitted: “A Party Who … Put[s] All … Eggs in One Basket [Cannot] Complain When The Basket Proves Inadequate” (Good Quote)

González-Rivera v. Centro Médico Del Turabo, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21449 (1st Cir. July 19, 2019): Scheduling orders are essential tools for modern-day case management, and litigants flout such ...
González-Rivera v. Centro Médico Del Turabo, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 21449 (1st Cir. July 19, 2019): Scheduling orders are essential tools for modern-day case management, and litigants flout such orders at their peril. This case, in which plaintiff-appellant Aglaed…
Continue Reading
Previous47484950515253Next

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