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

Inherent Power Sanctions — Civil Contempt Imediately Appealable If No Continuing Lit. — Oral Injunction Enforceable (Circuit Split) — Court Can’t Credit Time Served, But May Decrease (Not Incr.) Fed. Sentence & Order Concurrent/Consec. Sentences

In re United States Bureau of Prisons, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2019): The U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appeals a contempt sanction related to its calculation of sent ...
In re United States Bureau of Prisons, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7560 (5th Cir. Mar. 14, 2019): The U.S. Bureau of Prisons (BOP) appeals a contempt sanction related to its calculation of sentencing credits for federal prisoners. We reverse.…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Must Plaintiffs Show an “Administratively Feasible” Method for Determining Class Membership? — Circuit Split — Impermissibility of “Fail-Safe” and “Self-Identifying” Classes

Usry v. Equityexperts, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39651 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2019): Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the complaint (Doc. ...
Usry v. Equityexperts, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39651 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 12, 2019): Before the Court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to amend the complaint (Doc. 82) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Order without Final Fees Award Appealable If Parties Stipulate as to Amount — First Amendment No Defense to Sanctions for Suing (1) without Standing (2) Immune Defendants — Substantial Frivolous Claims Not Outweighed by Sound Claims

Collins v. Daniels, 2019 WL 908645 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico’s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM”), and five New Mexico state legislators (the “Legislator ...
Collins v. Daniels, 2019 WL 908645 (10th Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 This is a § 1983 case that challenges the constitutionality of New Mexico’s system of bail. Plaintiffs-Appellants Darlene Collins, the Bail Bond Association of New Mexico (“BBANM”), and …
Continue Reading

Magistrate Judge Decisions — May or Must a District Judge Consider New Evidence When Reviewing De Novo Findings & Recommendation? — Circuit Split — Standard of Review of Unobjected to Portions

Seehawer v. McMinnville Water & Light, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27372, 2019 WL 826454 (D. Or. Feb. 21,2019): United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendatio ...
Seehawer v. McMinnville Water & Light, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27372, 2019 WL 826454 (D. Or. Feb. 21,2019): United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on December 10, 2018. ECF 52. Magistrate…
Continue Reading

R. 37 Sanctions—Dismissal—R. 26(a) Violated by Disclosure of New Evid. for New Legal Theory at End of Discovery — R. 16(f) Violated Where Sched. Order Required Disclosure in Time to Allow Deps. — Court Needn’t Tick Through All Factors

Gomez v. Haystax Tech., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6618 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019): In this appeal, Appellant Ramona Rae Gomez, a former employee of NetCentrics and Haystax Technology (coll ...
Gomez v. Haystax Tech., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 6618 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2019): In this appeal, Appellant Ramona Rae Gomez, a former employee of NetCentrics and Haystax Technology (collectively, "Appellees"), asserts that Appellees discriminated against her in…
Continue Reading

U.S. Courts Have Power under Bankruptcy Code to Pursue Foreign Subsequent Transfers of Fraudulent Conveyance — Neither Presumption against Extraterritoriality Nor International Comity Preclude This

In re Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 2019 WL 903978 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 These eighty-eight consolidated appeals arise from the ongoing fallout of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. As alleged, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff Securities ...
In re Irving H. Picard, Trustee for the Liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Secs. LLC, 2019 WL 903978 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 2019): *1 These eighty-eight consolidated appeals arise from the ongoing fallout of Bernard Madoff’s Ponzi scheme. As…
Continue Reading

Email Warning Proprietor of Dangerous Condition ≠ Hearsay If Offered for Notice — Fact Noticed Risk Is Somewhat Different Than Risk at Issue OK — Police Officer’s Alleged History of Excessive Force ≠ Rule 406 Habit or Routine Practice

Sherrod v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15699 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2019): This matter is currently before the Court on several motions in limine. Defendants Officer S ...
Sherrod v. Williams, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15699 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 31, 2019): This matter is currently before the Court on several motions in limine. Defendants Officer Sean C. Williams, Sergeant David M. Darkow, Chief Dennis Evers and the…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Properly Denied Where Losing Party “Vigorously Litigated” But Not in Bad Faith (Good Quote) — Whether to Hold Evidentiary Hearing on Sanctions Motion, under Rule 43(a), Is Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion

In re Johnson (Gonzalez v. Johnson), 2019 WL 126753 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm.
In re Johnson (Gonzalez v. Johnson), 2019 WL 126753 (9th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM** *1 Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s denial of their motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm. 1. Defendants-Appellants contend…
Continue Reading

Appellate Jurisdiction: Rule 37 Monetary Sanctions Unappealable under Cunningham & Too Linked to Merits (+ Reviewable Later) to Fall within Collateral Order Doctrine

Siser N. Am., Inc. v. World Paper, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33313 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018): Michael Laurence Feinstein, former attorney for Defendants, appeals the district co ...
Siser N. Am., Inc. v. World Paper, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33313 (6th Cir. Nov. 27, 2018): Michael Laurence Feinstein, former attorney for Defendants, appeals the district court's interlocutory order, ordering him to pay $76,925.53 in sanctions.…
Continue Reading

Statute of Limitations — When a Prior Lawsuit Does, and Does Not, Trigger Inquiry Notice (2d Circuit) — Similarly Situated Plaintiffs in Near Proximity (Co-Tenants) Pressing Essentially the Same Grievance against One of the Same Defendants Is Enough

421-A Tenants Ass’n, Inc. v. 125 Court Street LLC, 2019 WL 317447 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Plaintiffs-Appellants 421-A Tenants Association, Inc., Vinetta Scrivo, and Richard Lebed (“the tenants”) appeal from the district court’s decision dismissing their class action complaint for failure to s ...
421-A Tenants Ass’n, Inc. v. 125 Court Street LLC, 2019 WL 317447 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Plaintiffs-Appellants 421-A Tenants Association, Inc., Vinetta Scrivo, and Richard Lebed (“the tenants”) appeal from the district court’s decision dismissing their class…
Continue Reading
Previous62636465666768Next

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