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

Federal Jurisdiction: Is Forum-Defendant Rule Jurisdictional? — Circuit Split — Choice of Law Clause Is Not “Tantamount” to Forum Selection Clause

Abdou v. Mahany, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27271  (E.D. Wis. Feb. 21, 2019): On November 9, 2018, this case was removed from Wisconsin state court on the basis of federal question and diver ...
Abdou v. Mahany, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27271  (E.D. Wis. Feb. 21, 2019): On November 9, 2018, this case was removed from Wisconsin state court on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§…
Continue Reading

RICO—Relatedness: Use of Mail Fraud in 2 Schemes Not Enough; Nor Is Fact 1st Caused 2nd — 6th Cir. Factors — Continuity: No Bright Line 17 Mo. Minimum in 6th Cir. — No Acquisition Injury from Buying Co. as RICO Vehicle—No (d) If No (a)-(c)

Aces High Coal Sales, Inc. v. Community Bank & Trust Of West Geo ...
Aces High Coal Sales, Inc. v. Community Bank & Trust Of West Georgia, 2019 WL 1531876 (6th Cir. April 9, 2019): Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of the civil RICO claims asserted in this action for failure to plausibly…
Continue Reading

28 U.S.C. §1782: Party Against Whom Discovery Is to Be Used May Intervene in Opposition — Party May Seek §1782 Discovery Despite Exclusive Venue Provision in Contract at Issue in the Foreign Dispute

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this case, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, is the multi-faceted motion to intervene, to vacate the ex parte order granting the
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this case, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, is the multi-faceted motion to intervene, to vacate the ex parte order granting the section 1782 application pursuant to rule 59(e), to quash…
Continue Reading

Taxation of Costs: Who Is the Prevailing Party when Both Sides Prevail on Something? — The One for Whom Judgment Is Entered — Taxable & Non-Taxable Deposition/Wayback Machine Costs (E.g., Video)

Computer Program & Sys. v. Wazu Holdings, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38118 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 11, 2019): ORDER This matter is before the Court on CPSI's Bill of Costs ...
Computer Program & Sys. v. Wazu Holdings, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38118 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 11, 2019): ORDER This matter is before the Court on CPSI's Bill of Costs (Doc. 329), Evident's objection (Doc. 330) and CPSI's reply (Doc.…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: While Negligence May Be Inadequate to Support Dismissal under R. 16 or for Failure to Prosecute, Attorney’s Fees Are Required by R. 16 for Ignoring Scheduling Orders unless Substantially Justified or Harmless

Coulter v. Paul Laurence Dunbar Cmty. Ctr., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8228, 2019 WL 1283000 (3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION*
Coulter v. Paul Laurence Dunbar Cmty. Ctr., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8228, 2019 WL 1283000 (3d Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Jean Coulter appeals from the judgment of the United States District…
Continue Reading

Texts Authenticated: Phone Taken from Party, Phone Properties Indicate Ownership (Picture of Party = “User-Generated Artifact”), Corroborated by Email Addresses & Content of Texts — Risk of Spoofing Acknowledged

Johnson v. State, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 69 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019): Lillie Johnson appeals her conviction for one count of first-degree cruelty to a child, arguing that the trial cour ...
Johnson v. State, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 69 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2019): Lillie Johnson appeals her conviction for one count of first-degree cruelty to a child, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in (1) excluding…
Continue Reading

Authentication: Attorney Affidavit Attaching Uncertified Copies of Public Records as “True and Correct” Based on Conclusory Assertion of “Personal Knowledge” Inadequate over Objection (Note: Fed. R. Evid. 902(5) Inapplicable)

City of Bakersfield v. W. Park Home Owners Ass'n & Friends, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2349 (Cal. Ct. App. April 4, 2019): West Park Home Owners Association and Friends (West Park ...
City of Bakersfield v. W. Park Home Owners Ass'n & Friends, 2019 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2349 (Cal. Ct. App. April 4, 2019): West Park Home Owners Association and Friends (West Park) opposed an action filed by the City…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court—Securities: Non-Maker Liable for Knowing Dissemination under 10b-5 & 17(a)(1) — Same Conduct Can Create Both Primary & Secondary Liability, Violate Multiple Subparts of 10b-5 –Janus Limited to Non-Disseminating Drafters?

Lorenzo v. SEC, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2295, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019): Securities and Exchange Commission
Lorenzo v. SEC, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2295, 2019 WL 1369839 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2019): Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 makes it unlawful: [*6]  “(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, “(b) To make any untrue…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Failure of Expert in Social Security Hearing to Disclose Supporting Data Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Substantial Evidence Standard Unmet — “Substantial” Evidence in Agency Proceedings Is “More Than a Mere Scintilla” (Good Quote)

Biestek v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2480 (U.S. April 1, 2019): The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals who cannot obtain work because of a p ...
Biestek v. Berryhill, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2480 (U.S. April 1, 2019): The Social Security Administration (SSA) provides benefits to individuals who cannot obtain work because of a physical or mental disability. To determine whether an applicant is entitled to …
Continue Reading

Dismissal Sanction — Neither R. 37 Nor Inherent Power Requires Clear & Explicit Warning — Lack = Factor for Court to Consider in Selecting Sanction — Rendering Discovery & Summary Judgment Useless with New Evidence Suffices (4th Cir. Factors)

Rangarajan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5194 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019): Mitra Rangarajan, who claims that she was constructively discharged as a nurse practitioner at the ...
Rangarajan v. Johns Hopkins Univ., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 5194 (4th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019): Mitra Rangarajan, who claims that she was constructively discharged as a nurse practitioner at the School of Medicine of Johns Hopkins University — whether…
Continue Reading
Previous59606162636465Next

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