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: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 868 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2025):
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 868 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2025): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party … from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.”…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Burden Is On Noncompliant Party to Prove Harmlessness — Court Need Not Hold Hearing If Noncompliant Party Fails to Argue Harmlessness, Even When Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal

Key v. Qualcomm Inc, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4311 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025) (unpublished): Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., tracking the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) theories that Qualcomm’s business practices violated state and federal antitrust law. These business practices include (1) Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy, under which Qualcomm refuses to se ...
Key v. Qualcomm Inc, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4311 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025) (unpublished): Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., tracking the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) theories that Qualcomm’s business practices violated state and federal antitrust law. These business practices include …
Continue Reading

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

FX Aviation Cap. LLC v. Guerrero, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3656 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025) (unpublished): This appeal stems from a long-standing dispute between Plaintiff-Appellant FX Aviation Capital, LLC ("FX") and several former business partners— ...
FX Aviation Cap. LLC v. Guerrero, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3656 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025) (unpublished): This appeal stems from a long-standing dispute between Plaintiff-Appellant FX Aviation Capital, LLC (“FX”) and several former business partners——LG Aviation, Inc., Mark Liker,…
Continue Reading

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

Al-Nahhas v. 777 Partners, LLC, 2025 WL 546908 (7th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025): *1 Illinois resident Eido Hussam Al-Nahhas took out four loans from an online lending company called Rosebud Lending LZO, doing business as ZocaLoans. Those loans charged exorbitant interest rates of up to nearly 700%—far beyond the rates allowed under Illinois law. Al-Nahhas contends tha ...
Al-Nahhas v. 777 Partners, LLC, 2025 WL 546908 (7th Cir. Feb. 19, 2025): *1 Illinois resident Eido Hussam Al-Nahhas took out four loans from an online lending company called Rosebud Lending LZO, doing business as ZocaLoans. Those loans charged exorbitant…
Continue Reading

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

Claims v. Lundbeck LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4489 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025): Plaintiffs [*2]  are business entities that allegedly own recovery rights assigned to them by health insurers and other third-party Medicare payors ("Ass ...
Claims v. Lundbeck LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4489 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025): Plaintiffs [*2]  are business entities that allegedly own recovery rights assigned to them by health insurers and other third-party Medicare payors (“Assignors”). Assignors reimbursed their enrollees…
Continue Reading

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Hartman v. Does, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2477, 2025 WL 398846 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Defendants-Appellants appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions for judgment ...
Hartman v. Does, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2477, 2025 WL 398846 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Defendants-Appellants appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law1 and…
Continue Reading

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

Sec'y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. ("Prestige") operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent trave ...
Sec’y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: (1) Pressing Objectively Frivolous Arguments, Multiple Misstatements at Oral Argument and Failure to Address What District Judge Said Warrant Award against Appellants’ Counsel (Only) — (2) “General Award” of $5,000 Warranted Where Appellee Failed to Sufficiently Document Its Fees and Expenses [Goodyear v. Haegar Issue]]

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Arutyunyan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2025): ORDER* Having reviewed the parties' responses to the February 22, 2024 order to show cause (Dkt. No ...
Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Arutyunyan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 1394 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2025): ORDER* Having reviewed the parties’ responses to the February 22, 2024 order to show cause (Dkt. No. 37),1 the court hereby imposes…
Continue Reading

RICO: Capital Call Investment Process Increasing Equity of Those Responding to Call at Expense of Those Not Responding ≠ Collection of An Unlawful Debt

Malley v. San Jose Midtown Dev. LLC, 2023 WL 2240805 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 In this civil RICO action, Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory Malley contends that the Defendants-Appellees, San Jose Midtown Development, LL ...
Malley v. San Jose Midtown Dev. LLC, 2023 WL 2240805 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2023) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 In this civil RICO action, Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory Malley contends that the Defendants-Appellees, San Jose Midtown Development, LLC (“SJMD”) and its majority …
Continue Reading

RICO [And Constitutional] Standing: Concrete Injury Requirement Not Satisfied by Alleged Intangible Injuries of Intrusion Upon Seclusion, Confusion And Emotional Distress, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, Deterred Speech On Nondefamatory Matters, Violation Of First Amendment Rights, And Compulsion

Cooper v. US Dominion, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32883, 2023 WL 8613526 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Plaintiffs Jennifer Cooper, Eugene Dixon, ...
Cooper v. US Dominion, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 32883, 2023 WL 8613526 (10th Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (unpublished): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Plaintiffs Jennifer Cooper, Eugene Dixon, Francis Cizmar, Anna Pennala, Kathleen Daavettila, Cynthia Brunell, Karyn Chopjian, and…
Continue Reading
Previous45678910Next

Recent Posts

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice