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

Sanctions: Because R. 11 Focuses on Deterrence, It Doesn’t Conflict with Compensatory State Statute Allowing Jury to Award Fees for Frivolous Positions — When May and Shall Used in Same Rule, Inference Is Usual Meanings (Good Quote)

Showan v. Pressdee, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12754, 2019 WL 1891785 (11th Cir. April 29, 2019): *1 Plaintiff Galawezh Showan appeals from her $ 330,000 jury verdict against Defend ...
Showan v. Pressdee, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12754, 2019 WL 1891785 (11th Cir. April 29, 2019): *1 Plaintiff Galawezh Showan appeals from her $ 330,000 jury verdict against Defendants Patrick Pressdee and Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation (“Krispy Kreme”). For the…
Continue Reading

Federal Arbitration Act — Subject Matter Jurisdiction: “Look Through” Approach Applies to Motions to Confirm (§9) Just Like Motions to Compel (§4) and Motions to Vacate (§10) — Award Confirmed If “Barely Colorable” (Good Quote)

Landau v. Eisenberg, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13137 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019): Per Curiam. In June 2005, two groups from the Bobov Hasidic Jewish community in B ...
Landau v. Eisenberg, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13137 (2d Cir. May 1, 2019): Per Curiam. In June 2005, two groups from the Bobov Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York, agreed to arbitrate [*2]  certain disputes before a rabbinical…
Continue Reading

RICO: Municipalities/Tribes Not Exempt from Prospective Injunctive (& Other?) Relief on Mens Rea Grounds — Arbitration: Tribal Pay Day Loan Arb. Clauses Unconscionable

Gingras v. Think Fin., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12104 (2d Cir. April 24, 2017): The federal government and many states have laws designed to protect ...
Gingras v. Think Fin., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12104 (2d Cir. April 24, 2017): The federal government and many states have laws designed to protect consumers against predatory lending practices. In this case, we must determine what happens …
Continue Reading

Arbitration/New York Convention: Panel Is Comparatively More Expert about Meaning of Its Own Rules, Better Able to Interpret & Apply Them, & Doesn’t Exceed Power by Reasonably Construing Them

Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte Int'l Gmbh, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11782 (11th Cir. April 23, 2019): Appellant Inversiones y P ...
Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. v. Del Monte Int'l Gmbh, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11782 (11th Cir. April 23, 2019): Appellant Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical INPROTSA, S.A. (INPROTSA) appeals from the district court's orders denying its petition to…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Ambiguous Contract, Like Silent One, Insufficient to Support Class Arbitration — Contra Proferentem Is Public Policy Rule, Not Helpful in Determining Parties’ Intent Nor Basis for Imposing Classwide Arbitration

Lamps Plus v. Varelam 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 (U.S. April 24, 2019): The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce covered arbitration agreement ...
Lamps Plus v. Varelam 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2943 (U.S. April 24, 2019): The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce covered arbitration agreements according to their terms. See 9 U. S. C. §2. In Stolt-Nielsen S. A. v. …
Continue Reading

RICO: Causation May Be Proved Circumstantially — Duty to Prove Absence of Any Plausible Motive under Matsushita Is Limited to Antitrusr (Dissent on This) — Use of Related Crimes Not Barred by 404(b)

Waste Mgmt. of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. River Birch, Inc., 2019 ...
Waste Mgmt. of Louisiana, L.L.C. v. River Birch, Inc., 2019 WL 1550248 (5th Cir. April 10, 2019): *1 This appeal challenges the district court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants River Birch, Inc., Albert Ward, Frederick …
Continue Reading

Sanctions Unwarranted Where Names of Undisclosed Witness Disclosed in Discovery (Rules 37(c)(1), 26(e)(1)(A)) — No Spoliation (Video) Absent Reasonably Foreseeable Threat of Litigation

Cottrell v. Nicholson Props. LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10922 (3d Cir. April 11, 2019): Maryann Cottrell and Richard Holland, now proceeding pro se, appeal the ...
Cottrell v. Nicholson Props. LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10922 (3d Cir. April 11, 2019): Maryann Cottrell and Richard Holland, now proceeding pro se, appeal the District Court's summary judgment in favor of Nicholson Properties, George Nicholson, Sr., and…
Continue Reading

Appeals: If Appellant Seeks to Reinstate Bkcy. Ct. Opinion, Opin. Is Effectively Its Opening Brief, So It Need Not Restate Args in Opin.— Otherwise, It Can’t Raise Args. Not Raised in D.Ct. or BAP — No Inherent Power to Override Stat. — Estoppel OK

In re Reyes-Colon (Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon), 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019): *1 Edgar Reyes-Colon (“Reyes-Colon”), a licensed plastic surgeon specializing in facial cosmetic surgery, allegedly failed to repay certain debts. In November 2006, one of his creditors, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ( ...
In re Reyes-Colon (Popular Auto, Inc. v. Reyes-Colon), 2019 WL 1785039 (1st Cir. April 24, 2019): *1 Edgar Reyes-Colon (“Reyes-Colon”), a licensed plastic surgeon specializing in facial cosmetic surgery, allegedly failed to repay certain debts. In November 2006, one of…
Continue Reading

Arbitration: District Courts Have Little Discretion to Refuse Enforcement of Awards under New York Convention, Limited to Article V Grounds (Good Quotes) — Court Defers to Arbitration Organization’s Interpretation of Own Rules

Stati v. Republic of Kaz., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11561 (D.C. Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished):   This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the Dis ...
Stati v. Republic of Kaz., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11561 (D.C. Cir. April 19, 2019) (unpublished):   This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and on the briefs and…
Continue Reading

Disqualification — Advocate-Witness Rule (Rule 3.7) Bars Pretrial Work, Too — Doubts Resolved in Favor of Testimony, Not Advocacy — Hardship within Rule Must Be Unforeseeable

Wyndham Vacation Ownership v. Vacation Transfers Unlimited, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67189 (M.D. Tenn. April 19, 2019): Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs&# ...
Wyndham Vacation Ownership v. Vacation Transfers Unlimited, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67189 (M.D. Tenn. April 19, 2019): Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion to disqualify Aubrey Givens and Kristin Fecteau Mosher (Docket Entry No. 24). For the reasons…
Continue Reading
Previous57585960616263Next

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