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

RICO: LIBOR Fraud Not Proximate Cause of Loss on Bonds Not Tied to LIBOR — Injury Directly Caused by Independent Actors — Inaptness of Fraud on Market Theory, Event Studies & Efficient Capital Markets Hypothesis Evidences No Proximate Cause

7 West 57th Street Realty Co., LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 2019 WL 1914278 (2d Cir. April 30, 2019) (unpublished):   SUMMARY ORDER Appellant 7 West 57th Street Realty Company, LLC appeals from the March 20, 2018, judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, < ...
7 West 57th Street Realty Co., LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 2019 WL 1914278 (2d Cir. April 30, 2019) (unpublished):   SUMMARY ORDER Appellant 7 West 57th Street Realty Company, LLC appeals from the March 20, 2018, judgment of the United States…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Under R. 11, Court Need Only Assess Objective Reasonableness, Needn’t Assess Fraud Just Because It Is Claimed — Party May Hold Unreasonable Belief in Good Faith (No IHP) — Lack of Dilatoriness Supports Denial of §1927 Sanctions

Rowe v. Gary, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13850, 2019 WL 2059826 (11th Cir. May 9, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Maria Sperando, a lawye ...
Rowe v. Gary, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13850, 2019 WL 2059826 (11th Cir. May 9, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Maria Sperando, a lawyer proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in…
Continue Reading

Federal, Not State, Sanctions Law Applies in Fed. Court — Neither R. 11, 26(g), or 37, or §1927 Applied — No §1927 Sanctions on Client — Fed. R. Civ. P. Don’t Require Party Opposing 12(c) Motion to Attach Documents to Its Opposition

Cooke v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9002, 2019 WL 1348291 (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2019): In this suit under the diversity jurisdi ...
Cooke v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9002, 2019 WL 1348291 (7th Cir. Mar. 26, 2019): In this suit under the diversity jurisdiction, a district court ordered Jackson National Life Insurance to [*2]  pay about …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Vexatious Litigant Injunctions — Sixth Circuit Adopts 4-Part Test of Ninth Circuit

Clemons v. Dewine, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13271 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER Cornelius Clemons, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals the ...
Clemons v. Dewine, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13271 (6th Cir. May 1, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER Cornelius Clemons, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal of his civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).…
Continue Reading

Spousal Privileges — (1) Adverse Spousal Testimony Priv. Invokable Only by Witness; Preferred Procedure Delineated — (2) Marital Communications Priv.: Invokable by Either; 3 Prongs; Inapplicable to Commc’ns re Joint Illegal Activity

United States v. Jackson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9807, 2019 WL 1501539 (6th Cir. April 3, 2019): A jury found Darries Jackson guilty of two counts of possessing ...
United States v. Jackson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 9807, 2019 WL 1501539 (6th Cir. April 3, 2019): A jury found Darries Jackson guilty of two counts of possessing ammunition as a felon. Deciding that Jackson's prior convictions qualified as…
Continue Reading

Bench Trials — Post-Trial Motions: Rule 59(e) Inapt for Newly-Discovered Evidence — Should Use 59(a)(2) — New Evidence of Spoliation Insufficient If, Indulging Adverse Inference, Result Would Not Change

Jenkins v. Anton, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (11th Cir. April 29, 2019): Jennifer Jenkins worked as a paralegal for David Anton for about nine months. ...
Jenkins v. Anton, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12878 (11th Cir. April 29, 2019): Jennifer Jenkins worked as a paralegal for David Anton for about nine months. She had a flexible work schedule, and records of the hours she worked …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Least Severe Sanction to Be Imposed — District Court May Deny Sanctions on Ground That Substantive Dismissal Is Enough, Or Could Add Dismissal Is Also on Rule 11 Grounds

Mr. Mudbug, Inc. v. Bloomin' Brands, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13432 (5th Cir. May 1, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:
Mr. Mudbug, Inc. v. Bloomin' Brands, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13432 (5th Cir. May 1, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* Mr. Mudbug, Inc. ("MMI") appeals the dismissal of its breach-of-contract and detrimental-reliance claims on summary judgment. Bloomin' Brands, Inc.…
Continue Reading

Removal —§1447(c) Sanctions OK If No “Objectively Reasonable [vs. Frivolous] Basis,” Not If Position “Colorable” — §1446(b)(3) Limited to Developments in Case—Person Sued in Official Capacity Is Not Same As Individual

League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12124 (3d Cir. April 24, 2019): In 2017, the League of Women Voters and a group of Pennsylv ...
League of Women Voters of Pa. v. Pennsylvania, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12124 (3d Cir. April 24, 2019): In 2017, the League of Women Voters and a group of Pennsylvania Democratic voters filed a state court lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania's…
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Unquantified Sanctions Award Not Appealable

Nayak v. Jennifer A. Farley & Voith Holding, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10727 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished): Sandeep Nayak, a former employee of Voith Turbo ...
Nayak v. Jennifer A. Farley & Voith Holding, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10727 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished): Sandeep Nayak, a former employee of Voith Turbo Inc. (a subsidiary of defendant-appellee Voith Holding Inc.), negotiated a settlement with …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Failure to Pay Ordered Rule 37 Financial Sanctions without Justification Justifies Inherent Power Dismissal

Pope v. Krueger, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10691 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished):  Jermel Pope, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissa ...
Pope v. Krueger, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10691 (7th Cir. April 11, 2019) (unpublished):  Jermel Pope, a former federal prisoner, appeals the district court's dismissal of his suit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons and several of its administrators…
Continue Reading
Previous56575859606162Next

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