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

Arbitration — 4 Triggers for the New York Convention — Because Convention Is a Treaty, It Is Unaffected by Statute Protecting State Regulation from Any “Act of Congress” — Convention Preempts Contrary State Statute

McDonnel Grp., L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14177, 2019 WL 2082905 (5th Cir May 13, 2019): In this appeal, relating to arbitrati ...
McDonnel Grp., L.L.C. v. Great Lakes Ins. SE, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14177, 2019 WL 2082905 (5th Cir May 13, 2019): In this appeal, relating to arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,…
Continue Reading

Declining Supplemental Jurisdiction on Dismissal of Federal Claims without Considering Diversity Abuses Discretion when Diversity Possible from Complaint — Pro Se Should Get One Amendment

Stoller v. Walworth Cty., 2019 WL 2305033 (7th Cir. May 30, 2019): *1 Christopher Stoller (along with Michael Stoller, who is not a party to this appeal) sued Walworth County, Wisconsin, and many of its public officials for allegedly selling tax-delinquent property at inflated prices based on “sham” apprai ...
Stoller v. Walworth Cty., 2019 WL 2305033 (7th Cir. May 30, 2019): *1 Christopher Stoller (along with Michael Stoller, who is not a party to this appeal) sued Walworth County, Wisconsin, and many of its public officials for allegedly selling …
Continue Reading

Social Media Video — Silent Witness Theory of Authentication / Admissibility — Unedited Videos Compiled from Party’s Phone Showing Party Sufficiently Authenticated without Proof of Process of Reproduction — Judge vs. Jury Roles [R. 104(a) vs.(b)]

Hibbert v. State, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 438 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 29, 2019): Appellant Jovan A. Hibbert was convicted in the Circuit Court for Montgom ...
Hibbert v. State, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 438 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. May 29, 2019): Appellant Jovan A. Hibbert was convicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of human trafficking by force and benefitting financially from human trafficking. …
Continue Reading

Texts — Admissibility: Offer to Buy Cocaine ≠ Hearsay [I.e., Is a Verbal Act] — Authentication by Recipient Who Recognized Number As One He’d Used to Converse with Sender, and Sender’s Acts in Compliance with Text, Enough

Commonwealth v. Davis, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2129 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 31, 2019): Damion Glenroy Davis appeals from the judgment of sentence ente ...
Commonwealth v. Davis, 2019 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2129 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 31, 2019): Damion Glenroy Davis appeals from the judgment of sentence entered following his jury trial convictions for possession with intent to deliver ("PWID") [controlled substances] …
Continue Reading

No Disqualification for Concurrent Representation — Insurer’s Employment of Lawyer for Insured Creates Only Principal-Independent Contractor Relationship

Developers Diversified of Tenn., Inc. v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70184, 2019 WL 1861322 (M.D. Tenn. April 25, 2019): Pending before ...
Developers Diversified of Tenn., Inc. v. Tokio Marine & Fire Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70184, 2019 WL 1861322 (M.D. Tenn. April 25, 2019): Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and related nontaxable [*2] …
Continue Reading

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
Previous54555657585960Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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

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