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

Texts on Decedent’s Facebook Page Authenticated by Other Person’s Screen Name, Contents, Timing of Messages and Decedent’s Actions Consistent with Them

 State v. Green, 2019 S.C. App. LEXIS 55 (S.C. Ct. App. June 26, 2019): Convicted by a jury of murder and desecration of human remains, Fabian Lamichael R. Green appeals, challenging the trial court& ...
State v. Green, 2019 S.C. App. LEXIS 55 (S.C. Ct. App. June 26, 2019): Convicted by a jury of murder and desecration of human remains, Fabian Lamichael R. Green appeals, challenging the trial court's admission of a series of direct …
Continue Reading

Sanctions—Even Egregious Litigation Abuse Doesn’t Subject Non-Party (Corp. Officer) to Personal Liability for Amount of Claim against Party (Corp.) — Must Be Punished under Appropriate Sanctions Power

The plaintiff in this case, Life Technologies Corp., filed a complaint against another corporation of the same name (the defendant corporation, or the defendant), alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act,
The plaintiff in this case, Life Technologies Corp., filed a complaint against another corporation of the same name (the defendant corporation, or the defendant), alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). The…
Continue Reading

Text/Email Authentication — Password / Passcode / Key Is Self-Authenticating If It Works to Unlock Cell Phone [or Other Device]

State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016):The State seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order denying the State's motion to compel the production of the passcode to unlock Aaro ...
State v. Stahl, 206 So. 3d 124 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016):The State seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the trial court's order denying the State's motion to compel the production of the passcode to unlock Aaron Stahl's cellphone. We…
Continue Reading

Disqualification: “Questionable at Best” Whether Party Has Standing to Raise a Conflict between Opposing Parties & Their Counsel (Good Quote) — Speculation That Adversay “Knew” a Lawsuit Was Coming Not Enough for Spoliation Sanctions

 Plouffe v. Cevallos, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17603 (3d Cir. June 12, 2019) (unpublished): This is a [*5]  consolidated appeal of two employment-related civil actions stemming from William C. ...
Plouffe v. Cevallos, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17603 (3d Cir. June 12, 2019) (unpublished): This is a [*5]  consolidated appeal of two employment-related civil actions stemming from William C. Plouffe, Jr.'s firing by Kutztown University. The first action was against…
Continue Reading

Non-Signatory May Not Compel Arbitration under NY Convention (NYC) — While FAA Permits This If State Law Allows, If the FAA Allows What the NYC Prohibits, the NYC Controls

 Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (BNG) LLP, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17071 (9th Cir. June 6, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Shrinivas Sug ...
Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya (BNG) LLP, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 17071 (9th Cir. June 6, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP ("SS LLP"), an incense manufacturing company based in Mumbai, appeals the district court's order denying its motion to…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. § 1782 — Foreign Recognition, Enforcement, Attachment & Garnishment Proceedings after Merits Decided Are Not “Adjudicative” & Thus Not “Proceedings” within §1782 — No Discovery Permitted

 In re Galaxy Energy & Res. Co. Pte. Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109718 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019): Before the Court is the ex parte Petition of Galaxy Energy and Resources Co. Pte. Ltd. ("G ...
In re Galaxy Energy & Res. Co. Pte. Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109718 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2019): Before the Court is the ex parte Petition of Galaxy Energy and Resources Co. Pte. Ltd. ("Galaxy" or "Petitioner") seeking permission to …
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions — Failure to Withdraw Claim Despite Letter Identifying Flaws But Later Seeking to Do So When Same Flaws Are Identified to Court in Dismissal Motion Is Unreasonable and Vexatious within §1927

Coleman v. Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., 2019 WL 2913718 (11th Cir. July 8, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Brandon Coleman appeals the district court’s award of sanctions and grant of summary judgment to Oasis Outsourcing, Inc. (Oasis). Coleman asserts the district court abused its discretion when it determined Coleman’s failu ...
Coleman v. Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., 2019 WL 2913718 (11th Cir. July 8, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Brandon Coleman appeals the district court’s award of sanctions and grant of summary judgment to Oasis Outsourcing, Inc. (Oasis). Coleman asserts the district court…
Continue Reading

Daubert: Court Properly Excluded Testimony from Expert Whose Report Was Researched, Drafted by Counsel with Only Minimally Revisions by Expert — That Process “Substantially Detracts from His Testimony’s Reliability and Usefulness” (Good Quote)

Puppolo v. Welch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18493, 2019 WL 2537526 (2d Cir. June 20, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS H ...
Puppolo v. Welch, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 18493, 2019 WL 2537526 (2d Cir. June 20, 2019) (unpublished): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the order of the District Court be and hereby…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: Denial without Prejudice of Motion to Compel Arbitration Is Reviewable under the FAA, 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(B) — Striking Such a Motion on Technical Grounds, Maybe Not

 Griggs v. Kenworth of Montgomery, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16786 (11th Cir. June 4, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kenworth of Montgomery Inc. brings this interlocutory a ...
Griggs v. Kenworth of Montgomery, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 16786 (11th Cir. June 4, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kenworth of Montgomery Inc. brings this interlocutory appeal under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 16, contending …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Dismissal for Evading Answers at Dep (“Deliberate Obtuseness”), = Lying to Avoid Giving Evidence, “Essentially Falsified Testimony” — Inherent Power, R. 37, R. 30(d): “Sanctions … Must Be Proportionate” (Good Quotes)

Donelson v. Hardy, 2019 WL 2949473 (7th Cir. July 9, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Charles Donelson sued a nurse and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., for allegedly providing him with constitutionally deficient medical care in prison and retaliating against him for filing other lawsuits. After the ...
Donelson v. Hardy, 2019 WL 2949473 (7th Cir. July 9, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Charles Donelson sued a nurse and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., for allegedly providing him with constitutionally deficient medical care in prison and retaliating against him for…
Continue Reading
Previous49505152535455Next

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