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

Unless D.Ct. Conclusively Precludes Proof of Required Element of Claim, Order Unappealable — Striking Preferred Damages Approach, Making Case Unprofitable Not Enough — Sanctions & Attorney’s Fees Rulings Almost Always Interlocutory

Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc., 2019 WL 272836 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2019): *1 The parties appeal and cross appeal from various rulings by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent and breach of contract dispute. Because there was no final decision on the merits, we dismiss the ...
Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Office Depot Inc., 2019 WL 272836 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2019): *1 The parties appeal and cross appeal from various rulings by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent and…
Continue Reading

Class Actions: American Pipe Doesn’t Protect Named Plaintiffs or Their Entities — No Tolling Where It “Would Result in an Abuse of Am. Pipe ”— Circuit Reviews D.Ct. Application of Own Rules for Abuse of Discretion

Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 2018 WL 6175580 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2018): *1 Plaintiffs Dr. Ari Weitzner and his professional corporation, Ari Weitzner M.D. P.C., challenge the District Court’s conclusion on summary judgment that their claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) were untimely. There is ...
Weitzner v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 2018 WL 6175580 (3d Cir. Nov. 27, 2018): *1 Plaintiffs Dr. Ari Weitzner and his professional corporation, Ari Weitzner M.D. P.C., challenge the District Court’s conclusion on summary judgment that their claims under the Telephone…
Continue Reading

Even Though Recipient Couldn’t Remember Context of Each Text, All Authenticated by Her Testimony She Often Texted with Sender, That Texts Were to/from His No., & by Contents — Hearsay: Sender’s Texts = Admissions; Recipient’s OK for Context

State v. Williams, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4914 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2018):  [*P1]  [**P1]  Defendant-appellant, Reginald D. Williams, app ...
State v. Williams, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 4914 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2018):  [*P1]  [**P1]  Defendant-appellant, Reginald D. Williams, appeals from his convictions following a jury trial. He raises the following assignments of error for review: 1. The …
Continue Reading

§1927 Sanctions for Refiling Twice-Dismissed Claims, Ignoring Discovery Orders, Initiating Similar Proceedings in State and Bankruptcy Courts [Extrajudicial Misconduct] & Filing Meritless Motions & Appeals

Eruchalu v. United States Bank, 2019 WL 244850 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 In these consolidated appeals, Godson Eruchalu appeals ...
Eruchalu v. United States Bank, 2019 WL 244850 (9th Cir. Jan. 17, 2019) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 In these consolidated appeals, Godson Eruchalu appeals pro se from the district court’s order granting defendant First Option Mortgage’s amended motion for attorney’s…
Continue Reading

Court Has “Broad Fact-Finding Powers with Respect to Sanctions & Its Findings Warrant Great Deference” / Inh. Power “Sanctions Should Be Reserved for The Rare & Exceptional Case” (Good Quotes)

Johnson v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 537 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019): MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellants a ...
Johnson v. Johnson (In re Johnson), 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 537 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019): MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's denial of their motion for attorneys' fees. We affirm. 1.…
Continue Reading

The Line Between Lay/Expert Opinion Depends on Basis, Not Subject Matter, of Testimony (Good Quote) — Where Jury Not Instructed as to How to Assess Specific Testimony, Real Possibility of Jury Confusion Requires Reversal

United States v. Sarkissian, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31710 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* ...
United States v. Sarkissian, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31710 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Karen ("Gary") Sarkissian appeals from the judgment of conviction sentencing him to 57 months of imprisonment after a jury found him guilty …
Continue Reading

Rule 26(g) Sanctions Are Mandatory and “Particularly Appropriate when an Attorney Submits a Forged Discovery Document” — “Erroneous Assessment of the Evidence” = Abuse of Discretion

SPV-LS, LLC v. TransAm. Life Ins. Co., 2019 WL 124211 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): *1 The Estate of Nancy Bergman (the Estate), through its personal representative, appeals a district court order denying its motion for reconsideration of an adverse grant of summary judgment. SPV-LS, LLC (SPV) cross-appeals the district co ...
SPV-LS, LLC v. TransAm. Life Ins. Co., 2019 WL 124211 (8th Cir. Jan. 8, 2019): *1 The Estate of Nancy Bergman (the Estate), through its personal representative, appeals a district court order denying its motion for reconsideration of an adverse…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Arbitration Agreement Must Fall Outside the Exclusions of FAA §1 before Court May Stay Litigation & Compel Arb. Under §§3 and 4 — Parties Cannot Delegate §1 Issue to Arbitrator

New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 724 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019):
New Prime, Inc. v. Oliveira, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 724 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2019): The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private arbitration agreements. But like most laws, this one bears its qualifications. Among other things, §1 says that …
Continue Reading

§ 1782 Application Not Moot, Even If Foreign Evidentiary Record Closed, If Appellate Court Might Receive New Evid. in Some Circs. — Is Magistrate Judge R&R Reviewed De Novo or for Clear Error / Contrary to Law? — Case Law Split

Application of Qualcomm Inc.,  2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5716 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019): On August 20, 2018, applicant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") filed an Ex Pa ...
Application of Qualcomm Inc.,  2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5716 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2019): On August 20, 2018, applicant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") filed an Ex Parte Application for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. After Magistrate Judge…
Continue Reading

§ 1782 Application Is Moot If Foreign Evidentiary Record Is Closed, Even If Appeal Is Pending & Reversal Possible — Court’s 1782 Jurisdiction Is Limited to the Foreign Proceeding Listed in the Application

In re Fuhr, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468 (Jan. 11, 2019): [*1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before this Court on Motion of Credit Suisse AG to ...
In re Fuhr, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6468 (Jan. 11, 2019): [*1] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before this Court on Motion of Credit Suisse AG to Dismiss Petition as Moot filed on October 29, 2018. ECF No.…
Continue Reading
Previous67686970717273Next

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