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 37(a)(2) Sanctions: 4 Factors in + 4 More If Case-Ending (5th Cir.) — Is Striking Pleadings Always Case Ending? — An Effect Cannot Precede Its Cause (Good Quote)

Law Funder LLC v. Munoz, 2019 WL 2127559 (5th Cir. May 16, 2019): PER CURIAM: *1 The Law Funder, L.L.C., sued Sergio Munoz, Jr., and his law firm for legal malpractice. Finding a series of discovery violations and related malfeasance, the district court struck Munoz’s answer. Munoz did not move to replead, an ...
Law Funder LLC v. Munoz, 2019 WL 2127559 (5th Cir. May 16, 2019): PER CURIAM: *1 The Law Funder, L.L.C., sued Sergio Munoz, Jr., and his law firm for legal malpractice. Finding a series of discovery violations and related malfeasance,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Failure to Honor Safe Harbor Dooms R. 11 Motion — No Bad Faith for Inherent Power Where Claim Survived Dismissal Motion — A Single Amended Complaint, No Delay in Discovery, Then Prompt Dismissal of Claims ≠ §1927 Multiplicity

PER CURIAM: Akira Techs., Inc. v. Conceptant, Inc., 2019 WL 2024830 (4th Cir. May 8, 2019) (unpublished): Appellants Conceptant, Inc., NuCognition, Inc., Joshua Phipps, Andrey Mikhalchuk, and Lisa Houle appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for attorney’s fees against Appellee Akira Technologies, Inc. Becau ...
PER CURIAM: Akira Techs., Inc. v. Conceptant, Inc., 2019 WL 2024830 (4th Cir. May 8, 2019) (unpublished): Appellants Conceptant, Inc., NuCognition, Inc., Joshua Phipps, Andrey Mikhalchuk, and Lisa Houle appeal the district court’s order denying their motion for attorney’s fees…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions for Stubbornly Pursuing Time-Barred Claim Despite Judicial Warning — Order to Show Cause for FRAP 38 Sanctions for Even More Frivolous Arguments on Appeal & Not Even Responding to 1 Dispositive Argument

Veit v. Frater, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10711, 2019 WL 1568077 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished): In
Veit v. Frater, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10711, 2019 WL 1568077 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished): In Veit v. Frater, 715 F. App'x 524 (7th Cir. 2017), we vacated the district court's decision that claim preclusion …
Continue Reading

Arbitration — By Signing NY Convention, Sovereign Waives Immunity from Enforcement in Other Signatory States, Per 28 U.S.C. §1605(a)(1) — No Waiver by Signing Int’l Agreement Not Mentioning Waiver — Waiver vs. Arb. Exceptions in §1605

Tatneft v. Ukr., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15787 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019): J U D G M E N T This case was considered on the record fro ...
Tatneft v. Ukr., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15787 (D.C. Cir. May 28, 2019): J U D G M E N T This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,…
Continue Reading

Confidentiality of Litigation Docs—3 Standards: Rule 26(c), Common Law Right of Access, 1st Amendment — Judicial Records, Including Summary Judgment Exhibits, Presumptively Available under Common Law Rt. — Unclear If 1st Amend. Applies to SJ Exhs.

In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14794, 2019 WL 2119630 (3d Cir. May 15, 2019): Following a decision of the Dis ...
In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14794, 2019 WL 2119630 (3d Cir. May 15, 2019): Following a decision of the District Court granting summary judgment to GlaxoSmithKline LLC ("GSK"), the losing…
Continue Reading

Privilege & Work Product Apply to Public Relations Firm — Log Must Show All Elements of Priv. — Detailed Discussion of Fiduciary Exception (Inapt in Securities Fraud Case), Waiver, Predominant Business v. Legal Purpose, Crime-Fraud

Pearlstein v. Blackberry Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45098, 2019 WL 1259382 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2019): OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING BLACKBERRY'S ...
Pearlstein v. Blackberry Ltd., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45098, 2019 WL 1259382 (S.D.N.Y. March 19, 2019): OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING BLACKBERRY'S PRIVILEGE DESIGNATIONS KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE BACKGROUND This case is a putative class action alleging…
Continue Reading

Arbitration — 2-Step Analysis: Whether (1) Parties Entered into Arb. Agreement, (2) If So, It Delegates to Arbitrator Issue of Arbitrability? — Whether Litigant Is Subrogated to Arb. Agmt. Is Step (1) Question — Schein Affects Step (2) Only

Lloyd's Syndicate 457 v. FloaTEC, L.L.C., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11256 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): This case concerns a disputed siting of Big Foot in ...
Lloyd's Syndicate 457 v. FloaTEC, L.L.C., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11256 (5th Cir. April 17, 2019): This case concerns a disputed siting of Big Foot in the Gulf of Mexico. We refer to a floating oil-drilling platform that rests …
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Expert Testimony for Failure to Timely Disclose Expert Evidence “Falls in the Heartland of Case Management Decisions” and “Review Is Highly Deferential” (Good Quotes)

Grant v. Entertainment Cruises and Spirit Cruises, LLC, 2019 WL 2158218 (D.C. Cir. April 29, 2019): MEMORANDUM Grant appeals from a judgment entered against her after a bench trial in an action for personal injury she brought under the Jones Act,
Grant v. Entertainment Cruises and Spirit Cruises, LLC, 2019 WL 2158218 (D.C. Cir. April 29, 2019): MEMORANDUM Grant appeals from a judgment entered against her after a bench trial in an action for personal injury she brought under the Jones…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Impossibility Preemption Based on Agency Unwillingness to Allow Action Required by State Law to Be Decided by Judge, Not Jury, Including Subsidiary Fact Questions

 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3542 (U.S. May 20, 2019): When Congress enacted the
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3542 (U.S. May 20, 2019): When Congress enacted the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U. S. C. §301 et seq., …
Continue Reading

Testimony As to Authorship, Substance of Unadmitted Texts Allowed, Authenticated by Tone, Contents, Access to Sending Device — Best Evidence Not Addressed

Commonwealth v. Louf, 2019 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 403 (Mass. Ct. App. May 23, 2019) (summary decision): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO
Commonwealth v. Louf, 2019 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 403 (Mass. Ct. App. May 23, 2019) (summary decision): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28 Following an eight-day trial in October, 2016, a jury convicted the defendant, Joseph Louf, of…
Continue Reading
Previous54555657585960Next

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