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

Pleading — “Civil pleadings are supposed to mark the boundaries for discovery; discovery is not supposed to substitute for definite pleading” (Good Quote) — Shotgun Pleadings (11th Circuit):  Four Categories/Types

Dvoinik v. Rolff, 2024 WL 2974475 (11th Cir. June 13, 2024): PER CURIAM: *1 Plaintiffs-Appellants Elena Dvoinik and Boris Zavadovsky, pro se, appeal the dismissal of their complaint against Defendants-Appellees Elke Rolff and Dale Webner—without prejudice and without leave to amend—as an impermissible shotgun pleading. Plaintiffs argue that t ...
Dvoinik v. Rolff, 2024 WL 2974475 (11th Cir. June 13, 2024): PER CURIAM: *1 Plaintiffs-Appellants Elena Dvoinik and Boris Zavadovsky, pro se, appeal the dismissal of their complaint against Defendants-Appellees Elke Rolff and Dale Webner—without prejudice and without leave to…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report: Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue

Randolph v. Best, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32416 (9th Cir. Dec. 19 2024) (unpublished):  Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report:  Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue   Randolph v. Best, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32416 (9th Cir. Dec. 19 2024) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* < ...
Randolph v. Best, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32416 (9th Cir. Dec. 19 2024) (unpublished):  Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report:  Failure to Argue Harmlessness Essentially Waives Issue   Randolph v. Best, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32416 (9th Cir. Dec.…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b) Sanctions — Exclusion of Supplemental Expert Report for Advancing New Opinions — Third Circuit Exclusion Factors — “Importance of Excluded Evidence:” If, As Proponent Argues, There Is Nothing New, Then Exclusion Doesn’t Harm Proponent; If There Is, It Harms Opponent

Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 624 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025): Lancium allegedly stole Austin Storms' thunder and patented it. This case centers around a conversation over cocktails and dinner at a Bitcoin mining conference, a foll ...
Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 624 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025): Lancium allegedly stole Austin Storms’ thunder and patented it. This case centers around a conversation over cocktails and dinner at a Bitcoin mining conference,…
Continue Reading

RICO Pleading: Generic Allegations of Fraud (Failing Even to Set Forth Any False Representation) And Extortion (Failing to Describe Actual Threats) Too Conclusory to State a Claim

  ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Samuel Lopez, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court's order dismissing his various claims against Compa Industries, Inc., several of Compa's officers and directors, and Stratify, LLC. Because we agree with the district court that Lope ...
  ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Samuel Lopez, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district court’s order dismissing his various claims against Compa Industries, Inc., several of Compa’s officers and directors, and Stratify, LLC. Because we agree with the district court…
Continue Reading

RICO Standing: Antitrust’s Indirect Purchaser Rule Applies in RICO Cases, Barring Claims by Indirect Purchasers Two Or More Steps Removed From The Violator In A Distribution Chain (Here, Truck Purchasers/Lessees Suing Manufacturer), Though Court Considers Bar “Unsupported by Sensible Principles”

Fenner v. GM, LLC, 113 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2024):
Fenner v. GM, LLC, 113 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2024): MOORE, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which BLOOMEKATZ, J., joined in full. KETHLEDGE, J. , delivered a separate opinion concurring in the judgment in…
Continue Reading

RICO Pleading: Statutory Directive That RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Extend to More Liberal Pleading Requirements

Sladek v. Bank of Am., NA. A N.C. Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673, 2024 WL 4224029 (10th Cir. Sept. ...
Sladek v. Bank of Am., NA. A N.C. Corp., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23673, 2024 WL 4224029 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* *1 Pro se Plaintiff Dennis Sladek appeals from the dismissal of his…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power and FRAP 38 Sanctions — Inherent Power Sanctions (Here, A Deterrence Payment of $25,000 to the Court — Goodyear Issue Not Addressed) May Be Imposed in Addition to Statutory Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Exceptional Patent Case) — § 285 Does Not Preclude A Separate Award of Sanctions Or Fees under Another Authority — Recidivism (25 Prior Lawsuits with Same Perceived Venue Deficiency) A Factor — Fact That Rule 11 Sanctions Were Unavailable Due to Dismissal of Lawsuit Opened the Door to Inherent Power Sanctions Under Chambers — FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Because Issue Previously Unaddressed in Circuit — A Meritless Appeal Is By No Means Necessarily A Frivolous One (Good Quote)

PS Prods. Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., 122 F.4th 893 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024): PS Product ...
PS Prods. Inc. v. Panther Trading Co. Inc., 122 F.4th 893 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2024): PS Products, Inc. and Mr. Billy Pennington (collectively, PSP) appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions Imposed Due to the “Striking Legal Emptiness” of Brief/Appeal, “A Legal Nothingburger” — Bad Faith Not Required: An Appeal “May Also Be Frivolous If It Is Filed Out Of Sheer Obstinacy” (Good Quotes)

Clarke v. Pollan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32955 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) ORDER PER CURIAM. In rejecting Diana Clarke's appeal in this case, we noted how Clarke's counsel, Bruce H. Wilson, repeatedly failed to recognize the relevant legal ...
Clarke v. Pollan, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 32955 (6th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024) ORDER PER CURIAM. In rejecting Diana Clarke’s appeal in this case, we noted how Clarke’s counsel, Bruce H. Wilson, repeatedly failed to recognize the relevant legal standards…
Continue Reading

RICO: Hobbs Act does not apply when the alleged extortion is meant to benefit the state

Rives v. Univ. of Tenn., 2024 WL 5103829 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024): When Dyllan Rives’s dog Hickory fell ill, she took him to the University of Tennessee’s pet hospital. Over two months, Dyllan and her father James Rives spent more than $75,000 on Hickory’s treatment. Despite their efforts, Hickory did not survive his illness. Frustrated by the outcome and high cost of Hick ...
Rives v. Univ. of Tenn., 2024 WL 5103829 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2024): When Dyllan Rives’s dog Hickory fell ill, she took him to the University of Tennessee’s pet hospital. Over two months, Dyllan and her father James Rives spent…
Continue Reading

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

Humana, Inc. v. Indivior, Inc., 2022 WL 17718342 (3d Cir. Dec. 15, 2022) (unpublished): OPINION* *1 Humana, Inc., and Centene Corporation (Insurers) are health benefit program insurers that provide their members with insurance to cover prescription drug costs. They maintain approved ...
Humana, Inc. v. Indivior, Inc., 2022 WL 17718342 (3d Cir. Dec. 15, 2022) (unpublished): OPINION* *1 Humana, Inc., and Centene Corporation (Insurers) are health benefit program insurers that provide their members with insurance to cover prescription drug costs.…
Continue Reading
Previous3456789Next

Recent Posts

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

RICO: Distinctiveness Issues Most Likely to Appear When The Enterprise Is An Entity Capable of Being Sued, Like A Corporation

Supreme Court: RICO: (1) Injuries to Business or Property That Derive from a Personal Injury Are Recoverable — (2) “Injury” Is Interchangeable in Meaning with “Harm” And Other Terms Connoting Loss — (3) “The Clayton Act and § 1964(c) Are Not ‘Interchangeable’” (Good Quote)— (4) (4) “You Can’t Replace Something With Nothing” (Good Quote) — (5) The Recoverable Economic Harm Flowing from Personal Injuries, Like All Other Recoverable RICO Harm, Must be Direct — (6)” Harm Resulting from a Single Tort Is Not a Ticket to Federal Court for Treble Damages” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Eleventh Circuit Generally Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Appellants Absent a History of Frivolous Litigation or an Explicit Warning

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice