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

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

Res Judicata: Federal Court Order Confirming Arbitration Award Has Same Preclusive Effect As Final Judgment, Which Is Determined by State Law in Diversity Case — Non-Party Parent Corp. Entitled to Same Preclusive Benefit as Wholly-Owned Subsidiary/Party

NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12283 (9th Cir. April 25, 2014): Plaintiff-Appellant NTCH-WA, Inc. previously arbitrated breach of con ...
NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12283 (9th Cir. April 25, 2014): Plaintiff-Appellant NTCH-WA, Inc. previously arbitrated breach of contract and related claims against ZTE USA, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant-Appellee ZTE Corp. ZTE Corp. was …
Continue Reading

Hearsay — Rule 801(d)(2) — Employee Must Still Be Employed But Needn’t Be in Same Position When Making Admission (Circuit Split — See Dissent, Note 4) — Irrelevance of 2011 Amendment

Weil v. Citizens Telecom Servs. Co., LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12666, 2019 WL 1891796 (9th Cir. April 29, 2019): Hearsay does not include statements offered ag ...
Weil v. Citizens Telecom Servs. Co., LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12666, 2019 WL 1891796 (9th Cir. April 29, 2019): Hearsay does not include statements offered against a party, made by that party's employee on a matter within the…
Continue Reading

Text Authentication — Recipient’s Testimony + Alleged Sender’s Admission That They Texted and Inability to Deny That “These Messages Are True” — Printouts Admitted Absent Genuine Issue as to Accuracy

In re Parenting Of: T.P.D.C. v. Staat, 2019 MT 107N, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 167 (Mont. May 7, 2019) (non-precedential):  [*P1]  Pursuant to Sectio ...
In re Parenting Of: T.P.D.C. v. Staat, 2019 MT 107N, 2019 Mont. LEXIS 167 (Mont. May 7, 2019) (non-precedential):  [*P1]  Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions — D.Ct. Should Consider Lesser Sanctions before Dismissing, But Need Not If Plaintiff Acted in Bad Faith, Has Significant Litigation Experience [Especially] with In Forma Pauperis Statute

Shepherd v. Annucci, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971 (2d Cir. April 15, 2019): Plaintiff-Appellant Eon Shepherd appeals from the judgment of the United Stat ...
Shepherd v. Annucci, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10971 (2d Cir. April 15, 2019): Plaintiff-Appellant Eon Shepherd appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Larimer, J.), which dismissed his pro …
Continue Reading

Suspending Sanctions ‘Til New Violation — Dist. Court Has FRAP 38-Like Sanctions for Bkcy. Appeals — Cutting Brief Pages as Sanction — Lack of Merit + Motive = Objective Bad Faith — Attacks on Court, Counsel Sxable—Fed. Cts. & St. Discipline

In re Lisse, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9496 (7th Cir. April 1, 2019): Attorney Wendy Alison Nora appeals a decision requiring her and her client to pay damages and ...
In re Lisse, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9496 (7th Cir. April 1, 2019): Attorney Wendy Alison Nora appeals a decision requiring her and her client to pay damages and costs related to this bankruptcy litigation, as well as an…
Continue Reading
Previous55565758596061Next

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