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

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

Supreme Court: Service by Mail on Foreign State Per FSIA §1608(a)(3) Must Be Mailed to Foreign Minister in Home Country, Not Embassy — Court Lacks Response to One Argument “Other Than … Not … Perfect Draftsmanship” (Good Quote)

Republic of
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 2293 , 2019 WL 1333259 (U.S. Mar. 26, 2019): This case concerns the requirements applicable to a particular method of serving civil process on a foreign state.  Under the Foreign Sovereign …
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions: Tantamount-to-Bad Faith Standard (11th Cir.) — Inherent Power/1927: Fees May Be Incurred “Because of” Counsel’s Misconduct Even after S/he Withdraws — That Some Evid. May Support a Different Finding Isn’t Clear Error (Good Quot

Eldredge v. EDCare Mgmt., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8076 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Amlong & Amlong, P.A., a law firm, appeals the district court' ...
Eldredge v. EDCare Mgmt., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8076 (11th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Amlong & Amlong, P.A., a law firm, appeals the district court's imposition of sanctions against it totaling $422,433.30 in attorney's fees and …
Continue Reading

Disqualification Should Be Decided before Merits — No Informed Consent Where Waiver Letter Merely States Interests “Are Or May Become Adverse” without Explanation — No Prejudice in Fact from Ethical Breach

Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Co. v. Mako One Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8507, 2019 WL 1283988 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019): In August 2013, Mako One Corporation ("Mako") ac ...
Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Co. v. Mako One Corp., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8507, 2019 WL 1283988 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019): In August 2013, Mako One Corporation ("Mako") acquired the historic Badgerow Jackson Building in downtown Sioux …
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Timeliness of Sanctions Motion — 4 Factors for Gauging Whether Delay Should Bar Relief under Rule 37(e) [Or Otherwise] — Eve of Trial Too Late, If Non-Preservation Known Years Earlier, Even If Party Didn’t Realize Prejudice Earlier

Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., 2019 WL 1411127 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019) ( 
Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., 2019 WL 1411127 (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019) ( Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48012 (D. Or., Mar. 22, 2019)): *1 Trial is set to begin in this class action lawsuit on…
Continue Reading

Even State RICO Stat. Allowing Suit for “Indirect” Injury Doesn’t Permit Shareholder Suit for Harm to Corp. Devaluing Stock — It Is a Derivative Claim — Contempt for Violating Automatic Stay Where Corp. = Debtor

Nicole Gas Production, Ltd. v. Bowers, 2019 WL 850960 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019): *1 This is a bankruptcy contempt dispute. Normally a party’s conduct is contemptuous or it is not. But in this unusual case, whether the defendants are in contempt depends on statutory construction. The question presented is whet ...
Nicole Gas Production, Ltd. v. Bowers, 2019 WL 850960 (6th Cir. Feb. 22, 2019): *1 This is a bankruptcy contempt dispute. Normally a party’s conduct is contemptuous or it is not. But in this unusual case, whether the defendants are …
Continue Reading
Previous60616263646566Next

Recent Posts

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

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

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