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7 West 57th Street Realty Co., LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 2019 WL 1914278 (2d Cir. April 30, 2019) (unpublished):   SUMMARY ORDER Appellant 7 West 57th Street Realty Company, LLC appeals from the March 20, 2018, judgment of the United States District Court for the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7 West 57th Street Realty Co., LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., 2019 WL 1914278 (2d Cir. April 30, 2019) (unpublished):   SUMMARY ORDER Appellant 7 West 57th Street Realty Company, LLC appeals from the March 20, 2018, judgment of the United States…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 LEXIS 13850, 2019 WL 2059826 (11th Cir. May 9, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Maria Sperando, a lawye ...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 LEXIS 13850, 2019 WL 2059826 (11th Cir. May 9, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Maria Sperando, a lawyer proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in…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
Previous57585960616263Next

Recent Posts

Rule 41(b): Five Factors to Be Weighed in Deciding Whether Dismissal Is Appropriate (Second Circuit) — Is A Finding of Bad Faith or Fault Required if Dismissal Is Without Prejudice? — Undecided If Truly Without Prejudice But It Is Required If the Without Prejudice Dismissal Will Act as a Dismissal on the Merits (Here, Because of the Statute of Limitations) — Failure To Consider A Lesser Sanction Than Dismissal Is Generally An Abuse Of Discretion

Spoliation Sanctions/Mootness: Stipulation Resolving “All Pending Discovery Disputes,” Which Are Enumerated, Does Not Moot Subsequent Sanctions Motion for ESI Spoliation — Postjudgment Sanctions Order Is Appealable When District Court Has Finally Disposed of Both Liability and Amount

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Default Judgment Appropriate Only As a Last Resort, When Less Drastic Sanctions Would Not Ensure Compliance with the Court’s Orders — (2) Default Judgment Sanction Requires Willful or Bad Faith Failure to Obey Discovery Order — (3) Fugitive Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Court-Ordered, Remote Deposition Despite Court Warning That Sanctions Could Follow Disobedience Warrants Default Judgment — (4) District Court Afforded Wide Discretion in Interpreting Its Own Orders — (5) Filing a Notice of Appeal from a Non-Appealable Order (Here, a Discovery Order) Does Not Deprive the District Court of Jurisdiction over the Case

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

RICO: Fraudulent Concealment Must Prevent Discovery of the Injury to Toll Statute of Limitations

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

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