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

Rule 37 Sanctions: It Is No Defense to Discovery Duties and Orders That Motion to Dismiss Is Pending — Violation of Order Caused by Negligence, Misunderstanding or Inability Won’t Justify Default or Dismissal (Good Quote)

Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30197 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2017): Phazzer Electronics, Inc. ("Phazzer") appeals from the district court' ...
Taser Int'l, Inc. v. Phazzer Elecs., Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30197 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2017): Phazzer Electronics, Inc. ("Phazzer") appeals from the district court's order granting Taser International, Inc.'s ("Taser") motion for sanctions. Taser Int'l, Inc. v. …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Discovery Rules Inadequate Where Party Not Only Failed to Produce But Made Affirmative Misrepresentations to Conceal Document’s Existence — $257,000 Awarded Apply Goodyear’s But-For Causation Test

Goldstein v. Bavelis (In re Bavelis), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32632 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2018): Quick Capital, a company owned by Ted Doukas, held a promissory note signed by George ...
Goldstein v. Bavelis (In re Bavelis), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32632 (6th Cir. Nov. 19, 2018): Quick Capital, a company owned by Ted Doukas, held a promissory note signed by George Bavelis, a debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Quick …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: “Substantially Justified” Means “Not Justified to a High Degree” But “to a Degree That Could Satisfy a Reasonable Person” (Good Quote) — If Refusal to Admit RFA Is Substantially Justified, Court Lacks Power to Award Fees

In re Rael, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34483 (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* This appeal involve ...
In re Rael, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34483 (10th Cir. Dec. 7, 2018): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* This appeal involves several orders entered in the bankruptcy proceedings stemming from the joint petition for bankruptcy relief filed by Robert and…
Continue Reading

May State Gov’t Assert Attorney-Client Privilege against Fed. Grand Jury Subpoena? — Circuit Split — 1st Cir. Says Yes; Maybe Not If State Official Subject of Criminal Inquiry — Appellate Jurisdiction: Advisory vs. Traditional Mandamus

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32961 (1st Cir. Nov. 21, 2018): Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training ("Department") petitions us for a writ of advisor ...
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32961 (1st Cir. Nov. 21, 2018): Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training ("Department") petitions us for a writ of advisory mandamus to answer the following question: May a state…
Continue Reading

Federal Jurisdiction—Class Actions: No Ancillary Jurisdiction over Fee Dispute Where Court Lacks Control over Funds (Distributed) & Dispute Has No Impact on Timing Or Substance of Relief in Underlying Action

In re Cmty. Bank, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35841 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2018)): R. Bruce Carlson was co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs in In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia M ...
In re Cmty. Bank, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35841 (3d Cir. Dec. 20, 2018)): R. Bruce Carlson was co-lead counsel representing the plaintiffs in In re Community Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1674 ("In …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions: Failure to Heed Dismissal of Case for Lack of Diversity, and Refiling in New District with Additional Defendant, Is Frivolous — Even If New Def. Is the Real-Party-in-Interest, Every Party’s Citizenship Counts

Zausa v. Zausa, 2018 WL 5734265 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2018): *1 Attorney Maurice James Salem believes that if he files a lawsuit in an Illinois federal district court, which dismisses the case for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, he can cure the jurisdictional problem by filing the same case in a feder ...
Zausa v. Zausa, 2018 WL 5734265 (7th Cir. Nov. 1, 2018): *1 Attorney Maurice James Salem believes that if he files a lawsuit in an Illinois federal district court, which dismisses the case for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, he …
Continue Reading

Texts/Hearsay — Adoptive Admissions (Factors) — Unique Nature of Texts (“Truncated, Raw & Immediate”) — Deflection vs. Acquiescence — Jury Must Be Instructed It Can’t Consider the Statements Unless It Finds Adoptive Admission Factors Satisfied

State v. Hill, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 2837 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2018): An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth ...
State v. Hill, 2018 Wash. App. LEXIS 2837 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2018): An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth." ER 801(d)(2)(ii). A jury convicted Frederick …
Continue Reading

RICO: Loss of Unvested Work Comp Benefits ≠ Injury to Business or Property — In California, That Right Is Wholly Statutory and Not Vested until Reduced to Final Judgment

Black v. Corvel Enter. Comp, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35309 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished): The district court dismissed Appellants' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). The district court concluded Appellants ...
Black v. Corvel Enter. Comp, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 35309 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2018) (unpublished): The district court dismissed Appellants' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: “Dismissal Must Be a Sanction of Last, Not First, Resort” (Good Quote) — Disregard of Scheduling Order, Even with Warning, Not Enough without Consideration of Lesser Sanctions and Other (3d Circuit) Factors

Rawls v. Gibbs, 741 Fed. Appx. 108, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31014, 2018 WL 5734259 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2018): (unpublished): OPINION*< ...
Rawls v. Gibbs, 741 Fed. Appx. 108, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31014, 2018 WL 5734259 (3d Cir. Nov. 1, 2018): (unpublished): OPINION* PER CURIAM Pro se appellant Sameech Rawls appeals the District Court's dismissal of his complaint for…
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment: Evidentiary Issues Reviewed for Abuse of Discretion — Unsigned Dep. OK on SJ If No Inaccuracies Shown — Affidavit from Undisclosed Person Harmless Where Others Disclosed to Say Same Thing & No Deps Taken

PNC Equipment Finance v. Mariani, 2018 WL 6584123 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2018): Harry Carr (“Carr”) appeals the decision of the district court to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC (“PNCEF”) and to deny Carr’s Motion to Amend, Stay, or Vacate the district judge’s ...
PNC Equipment Finance v. Mariani, 2018 WL 6584123 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2018): Harry Carr (“Carr”) appeals the decision of the district court to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiff PNC Equipment Finance, LLC (“PNCEF”) and…
Continue Reading
Previous70717273747576Next

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