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

Supreme Court: Class Actions — 23(f)’s 14-Day Period Not Subject to Equitable Tolling — Mandatory Claims-Processing Rules Unalterable If Diligently Asserted — Timely Reconsideration Motion Affects Start Date

Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1593 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2019): To take an immediate appeal from a federal district court’s order granting or denying class certifica ...
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1593 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2019): To take an immediate appeal from a federal district court’s order granting or denying class certification, a party must first seek permission from the relevant court of …
Continue Reading

RICO/9(b): Incorporating All Prior Allegations But Failing to Specifically Allege Precise False Statements — Let Alone Time, Place, Person Responsible for Same — Fatal

James v. Hunt, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35832 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2018) (unpublished): William James and Terri V. Tucker (the Plaintiffs) appeal pro se the district court's gra ...
James v. Hunt, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35832 (11th Cir. Dec. 20, 2018) (unpublished): William James and Terri V. Tucker (the Plaintiffs) appeal pro se the district court's grant of two Defendants' motions [*2]  to dismiss claims under Federal …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony, Alone, Are Insufficient to Find Bad Faith — Fact Witness Relied on Lawyer to Draft Discovery Responses for Witness’s Approval Not Sanctionable

Strang v. Ga., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 36707 (11th Cir. Dec. 31, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kathleen Strang, a former assistant city attorney in Albany, Georgia, brings a comp ...
Strang v. Ga., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 36707 (11th Cir. Dec. 31, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Kathleen Strang, a former assistant city attorney in Albany, Georgia, brings a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that her First Amendment…
Continue Reading

Texts: Authentication of Cell Data from Ownership, Admission Participated in Part of Chat — No Need to “Negate All Other Possibilities Inconsistent with Authenticity” — Record As “Muddle of Statements Not Phrased As Objections” (Good Quotes)

Snow v. State, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 342 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2019): A jury convicted Cristi Jeanette Snow of two counts of sexual performance of a child under age fourteen. See
Snow v. State, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 342 (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 17, 2019): A jury convicted Cristi Jeanette Snow of two counts of sexual performance of a child under age fourteen. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.25(b),…
Continue Reading

Denial of Rule 11 Sanctions in Case 1 Doesn’t Establish It Was Not “Objectively Baseless” within Noerr-Pennington Sham Exception — Sxs Discretionary—Non Coextensive Factors May Have Been Considered—No Issue Preclusion

Ni-Q, LLC v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc., 2019 WL 637703 (D. Or. Feb. 14, 2019): *1 In this patent action, the Court previously granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Ni-Q, LLC (“Ni-Q”), finding that the asserted claims of the subject patent are invalid and that Plaintiff did not infringe the ...
Ni-Q, LLC v. Prolacta Bioscience, Inc., 2019 WL 637703 (D. Or. Feb. 14, 2019): *1 In this patent action, the Court previously granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Ni-Q, LLC (“Ni-Q”), finding that the asserted claims of the …
Continue Reading

Rule 34: Party Must Produce Docs/Data It Has Practical Ability to Get — Not Required to Sue — Non-Producer Can’t Assign Claim to Avoid Duty — Requesting Party Must Prove Practical Ability — Preclusion of Use by Non-Producer

Coventry Capital Us Llc v. EEA Life Settlements, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12386 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019): I. Introduction By letter dated June 12, 2018 (Docket Item ("D. ...
Coventry Capital Us Llc v. EEA Life Settlements, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12386 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2019): I. Introduction By letter dated June 12, 2018 (Docket Item ("D.I.") 66) ("Coventry's June 12 Ltr."), plaintiff Coventry Capital US LLC ("Coventry")…
Continue Reading

Dismissal without Prejudice Doesn’t Make Def. Prevailing Party — Nor Does Defeating Preliminary Injunction — Must Have Judicial Action Changing Parties’ Relationship, Like Winning PI & Causing Opponent to Relent

Live v. Lonestar Logos Mgmt. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32139 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2018): This is the first Defend Trade Secrets Act case that has reached our cou ...
Live v. Lonestar Logos Mgmt. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32139 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2018): This is the first Defend Trade Secrets Act case that has reached our court. 18 U.S.C. § 1836 (effective May 11, 2016). But…
Continue Reading

Private Citizen Lacks Judicially Cognizable Interest in Prosecution of Another, Cannot Sue for Punishment or Deportation, Just As S/he Cannot Commence Criminal Action

Valmord v. Acs/Administration Children Servs., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20301 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019): Plaintiff Ritchlet W. Valmord brings this pro se ...
Valmord v. Acs/Administration Children Servs., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20301 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019): Plaintiff Ritchlet W. Valmord brings this pro se action against his former wife, Lila Cesar ("Cesar"), and four other defendants who allegedly helped her obtain…
Continue Reading

Does the FSIA Apply, & Limit Jurisdiction, in Criminal Cases? (Circuit Split) — Under Animal Sciences, Decl. of Foreign Law from Counsel Rejected (R. 44.1) — Old Cases=“Era When Jurisdiction Had Too Many Meanings (Good Quote)

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2019 WL 125891 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): Per Curiam:*Opinion Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2019 WL 125891 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): Per Curiam:*Opinion Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment filed by Senior Circuit Judge Williams. *1 With the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act …
Continue Reading

RICO Statute of Limitations — Plaintiffs Must Plead Fraudulent Concealment with Particularity to Establish Equitable Tolling

Evans v. Ariz. Cardinals Football Club, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3706 *; __ Fed. Appx. __; 2019 WL 459857 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM
Evans v. Ariz. Cardinals Football Club, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3706 *; __ Fed. Appx. __; 2019 WL 459857 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* This case arises from a suit brought by former players and the …
Continue Reading
Previous64656667686970Next

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