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 — Vexatious Litigant Injunction: 4 Factors (9th Circuit) — Failure to Give Notice of Possible Injunction (Imposed on Rule 11 Motion) Requires Vacatur

Block v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4089 (Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* and ORDER Plaint ...
Block v. Wash. State Bar Ass'n, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4089 (Feb. 11, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* and ORDER Plaintiff-appellant Anne Block appeals the district court's orders dismissing her amended complaint against defendants-appellees City of Gold Bar, Washington State…
Continue Reading

Website Authentication Depends on Purpose of Offer — Less Needed If Not for Attribution to Person — Legal Interpretation of Federal Rules of Evidence Reviewed De Novo — Did Motion in Limine Preserve Issue? (3 Factors)

United States v. Isabella, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7213 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2019): Rande Isabella was convicted under
United States v. Isabella, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7213 (10th Cir. Mar. 12, 2019): Rande Isabella was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) of persuading and attempting to persuade S.F., a 14-year-old girl, to "engage . . . in…
Continue Reading

It Would Appear That, After Getting a Traffic Ticket, One Has a Constitutional Right to Make a Rude Gesture at the Officer, without Fear of Reprisal (Definitely Not Recommended That Anyone Test This)

Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7369, 2019 WL 1143852 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2019):  [**1]  Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Go ...
Cruise-Gulyas v. Minard, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7369, 2019 WL 1143852 (6th Cir. Mar. 13, 2019):  [**1]  Fits of rudeness or lack of gratitude may violate the Golden Rule. But that doesn't make them illegal or for that matter …
Continue Reading

While Factors Are Same for Severe Sanctions under R. 37(b) & Inherent Power, They Don’t Apply to Fraud on the Court (FOC) — Circuit Split on Burden of Proving FOC — Fraud Must Succeed to Be FOC, Otherwise Just Sanctionable Lies

Cone v. Tessler, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39381 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2019): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. 98) I ...
Cone v. Tessler, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39381 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2019): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (Dkt. 98) I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff, Margaret Cone, filed this motion for sanctions against defendants and non-party, the University…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client: Firm May = Counsel to Trust Beneficiaries by Taking Fees They Paid in Response to Trustee Telling Them Firm Reps. Them, & by Indicating It Reps. Them — Can Dismiss Based on Affirmative Defense Only If Complaint Admits All Elements

Bistline v. Parker, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7503, 2019 WL 1187010 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2019): Plaintiffs are all former members of the Fundamentalist Ch ...
Bistline v. Parker, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7503, 2019 WL 1187010 (10th Cir. Mar. 14, 2019): Plaintiffs are all former members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ("FLDS"), which illegally practices polygamy. On July 13, …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Court Is “Particularly Vigilant in Requiring Proportionality Where Draconian Sanction of Dismissal Imposed” (Good Quote) — Due Process: Hearing Must Be Real, Not Sham — Liberal Pro Se Construction

Orozco v. Butler, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7721 (7th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019): Rogelio Orozco, an Illinois inmate, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against prison staff at Menard Cor ...
Orozco v. Butler, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 7721 (7th Cir. Mar. 15, 2019): Rogelio Orozco, an Illinois inmate, appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against prison staff at Menard Correctional Center and Pontiac Correctional Center for violating his due-process …
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction — Abstention — The “Narrow” “Crevice” of Colorado River vs. the More Lenient Standard in Declaratory Judgment Actions of Wilton/Brillhart

Certain London Mkt. Co. Reinsurers v. Lamorak Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39429 D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2019) (R&R): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND (#6). ...
Certain London Mkt. Co. Reinsurers v. Lamorak Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39429 D. Mass. Feb. 20, 2019) (R&R): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR REMAND (#6). KELLEY, U.S.M.J. I. Introduction. This is a reinsurance case …
Continue Reading

Substitution of Party on Appeal (FRAP 43(b)) OK Only If S/he Can’t Continue to Litigate, Not Just Doesn’t Want to Passing Reference to Issue in Opening Brief Doesn’t Preserve It for Review — “Bare Allegations” Don’t Satisfy RICO Mail Fraud, 9(b)

Miller v. Burt, 2019 WL 1219977 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Solomon Marcellus Miller appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Miller v. Burt, 2019 WL 1219977 (3d Cir. Mar. 14, 2019) (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Solomon Marcellus Miller appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).…
Continue Reading

Facebook Photos: May Impeach with Exhibits Not in Evidence — Authentication, Admissibility Not Required — No Surprise from Use in Closing of Exhs. in Evid. — Discovery Violation Doesn’t = Exclusion—R. 403 Requires > Possibility of Prejudice

Angeles v. Nieves, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1554, 2018 WL 3149551 (N.J. App. Div. June 28, 2018): PER CURIAM After an auto accident, a jury found d ...
Angeles v. Nieves, 2018 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1554, 2018 WL 3149551 (N.J. App. Div. June 28, 2018): PER CURIAM After an auto accident, a jury found defendant Carmen I. Nieves liable and awarded plaintiff Christian Angeles a $3,000,000…
Continue Reading
Previous62636465666768Next

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