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

Class Actions: Am. Pipe Tolling Ends upon Denial of Certification — Neither Reconsideration Nor Appeal Extend It — Sanctions: Citing Outdated & Abrogated Cases ≠ Argument for Good Faith Change in Law — Meritorious Motion Isn’t Frivolous

McCabe v. Lifetime Entm't Servs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3133, 2019 WL 409440 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) (Summary Order): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY OR ...
McCabe v. Lifetime Entm't Servs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3133, 2019 WL 409440 (2d Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) (Summary Order): UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and…
Continue Reading

RICO Conspiracy: Individual Relationship Spokes United by a Unifying Purpose ≠ Hub & Spoke Conspiracy — Where Cover-Up Is Essential Element of Criminal Scheme, It Counts for Continuity Purposes–Constitutional–Appeals: Must Specify Cross-Adoption

United States v. Fattah, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1405 (3d Cir. Jan. 16, 2019): Table of Contents
United States v. Fattah, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1405 (3d Cir. Jan. 16, 2019): Table of Contents Go to table1 [End of Document] I. Introduction Chaka Fattah, Sr., a powerful and prominent fixture in Philadelphia politics, financially overextended himself…
Continue Reading

RICO: Fraud of 3rd Parties for Purpose of Harming Plaintiffs = Proximate Cause — Rejecting Argument Statute of Limitations Doesn’t Commence Until Def. “Delivers Gift-Wrapped Admission” of Liability (Good Quote)

Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Forest Pharms. (In re Celexa and Lexapro Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig.), 915 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019): These consolida ...
Painters & Allied Trades Dist. Council 82 Health Care Fund v. Forest Pharms. (In re Celexa and Lexapro Mktg. & Sales Pracs. Litig.), 915 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2019): These consolidated appeals arise out of two so-called "off-label" prescription-drug-marketing cases…
Continue Reading

Social Media Photo Authenticated by Testimony It Is an Accurate Screenshot, Contents Depicted & Associated Comments on Same Facebook Page, and Lack of Evidence Suggesting Fabrication or Alteration

State v. Caslin, 2018-Ohio-5362, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 5679 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2018): [*P1]  Defendant-appellant, Chavez D. Caslin, appeals from a judgment ...
State v. Caslin, 2018-Ohio-5362, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 5679 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 31, 2018): [*P1]  Defendant-appellant, Chavez D. Caslin, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered on July 27, 2017, sentencing Caslin …
Continue Reading

RICO: Neither Patent Infringement Nor Unfavorable Judicial Rulings Are Predicate Acts — Infringing Products ≠ Stolen Property

Arunachalam v. IBM Corp., 2019 WL 350760 (3d Cir. Jan. 28, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM. *1 Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, proceeding pro se, appeals multiple decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, including its dismissal of a patent infringement claim, dismissal of civil claims under the Rac ...
Arunachalam v. IBM Corp., 2019 WL 350760 (3d Cir. Jan. 28, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM. *1 Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, proceeding pro se, appeals multiple decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, including its dismissal of…
Continue Reading

Generally No Rule 37(d) Dismissal If Lesser Sanctions Suffice, But Court May Has Discretion to Dismiss for Flagrant Disregard & Willful Disobedience of Discovery Orders — 41(b) Dismissal for Violating Order Generally OK If Litigant Forewarned

Soto v. Miami Dade Cty., 2019 WL 286153 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Appellant, Maricelia Soto (“Soto”), appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil rights complaint against Miami-Dade County and two Miami-Dade County police officers (“the defendants”). The distr ...
Soto v. Miami Dade Cty., 2019 WL 286153 (11th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Appellant, Maricelia Soto (“Soto”), appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil rights complaint against Miami-Dade County and two Miami-Dade County police officers…
Continue Reading

Voicemail Authentication: Under Rule 901(b)(5), Witness with Knowledge May Opine as to Identity of Voice — And That Exhibit (a Copy the Recording) Accurately Reflects the Message S/he Received [Implicitly Best Evidence, Too]

Commonwealth v. Bair, 2015 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 497, 120 A.3d 1054, 2015 WL 4263615 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2015): Paul Thomas Bair, III, appeals pro se from the order ente ...
Commonwealth v. Bair, 2015 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 497, 120 A.3d 1054, 2015 WL 4263615 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2015): Paul Thomas Bair, III, appeals pro se from the order entered May 21, 2014, denying his PCRA petition,…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice May Be Taken of Undisputed Information on Government Websites, Including Court Proceedings — Doing So Does Not Convert 12(b)(6) Dismissal Motion into Summary Judgment Motion

Vice v. Coffee, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1008, 2019 WL 97025 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2019): Defendants James Botts, Rodney Coffee, Barry Thacker, and Kenneth Scarberry have filed motions to dism ...
Vice v. Coffee, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1008, 2019 WL 97025 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 3, 2019): Defendants James Botts, Rodney Coffee, Barry Thacker, and Kenneth Scarberry have filed motions to dismiss the complaint filed by plaintiff Phillip Gene Vice.…
Continue Reading

Pro Se Pleadings from Lawyers Not Liberally Construed — No Rule 38 Sanctions Absent Separate Motion — “Just Damages” Include Fees, Which Need Not Be Itemized — Court May Award Fixed Amount as Penalty [Goodyear v. Haeger?]

Lipin v. Wisehart, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1534  (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* ...
Lipin v. Wisehart, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 1534  (10th Cir. Jan. 7, 2019) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* These consolidated appeals arise from a dispute over the ownership of real property in Delta County, Colorado (Property). Appellant Joan C. …
Continue Reading

RICO Proximate Cause/Injury Satisfied by Cost of Defending Sham Filing, Lost Sales Due to False Claims — Harm to Bus. Reputation? (State Law vs. Intangible) — >1 Can Be Directly Injured — Need Factual Allegations of Injury — RJR Issue Noted

Harmoni Int’l Spice, Inc. v. Hume, 2019 WL 286923 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019): The main issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged proximate cause under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
Harmoni Int’l Spice, Inc. v. Hume, 2019 WL 286923 (9th Cir. Jan. 23, 2019): The main issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged proximate cause under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 …
Continue Reading
Previous66676869707172Next

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