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

Appeals: Review of S.J. Denial Limited to Pure Issues of Law If No Rule 50 Motion — Absent Objection, Instructions Reviewable Only for Errors Affecting Substantial Rights and Plain Error

T. Levy Assocs., Inc., v. Kaplan, 2018 WL 6002881 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2018): *1 Defendants Michael and Nina Kaplan (“Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan”) and Mrs. Kaplan’s company BLC Beauty, Inc. (collectively, “the Kaplans”) appeal from the District Court’s orders partially denying their motion for summary judgment and ...
T. Levy Assocs., Inc., v. Kaplan, 2018 WL 6002881 (3d Cir. Nov. 15, 2018): *1 Defendants Michael and Nina Kaplan (“Mr. and Mrs. Kaplan”) and Mrs. Kaplan’s company BLC Beauty, Inc. (collectively, “the Kaplans”) appeal from the District Court’s orders…
Continue Reading

Trying Issue Not in Pretrial Order: 5-Factor Test — Omission of Expert Opinion from Rept. Cured by Dep. — Stick Figure Demonstrative OK under 611 — OK to Rely on Hearsay in 803(6) Testimony — Spoliation after Expert Review Sanctioned

Callahan v. Pac. Cycle, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32953 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018): PER CURIAM: Virginia Callahan and her minor granddaughter T.G. ("Appellants") ...
Callahan v. Pac. Cycle, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 32953 (4th Cir. Nov. 21, 2018): PER CURIAM: Virginia Callahan and her minor granddaughter T.G. ("Appellants") initiated this action against Pacific Cycle and Toys "R" Us ("Appellees"). Appellants alleged various …
Continue Reading

Sanctions Inappropriate under Rule 37 If 37(a)(1) Meet-&-Confer Duty Unsatisfied — Rule 11 Sanctions Unavailable If Safe Harbor Ignored — District Court Not Authorized to Suspend Fed. R. Civ. P.

Bush v. Chancery Court, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30239 (6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2018): Thomas K. Bush, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint and denyi ...
Bush v. Chancery Court, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30239 (6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2018): Thomas K. Bush, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's order dismissing his complaint and denying several motions he filed in this case related to…
Continue Reading

Reasonable Attorney’s Fees under § 1988 for a Prevailing Party May Be $0 — Inherent Power: While a Case May Be So Meritless as to Evince Bad Faith, Most Cases Require Proof of Subjective Bad Faith (Good Quote)

Martin v. Greisman, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30213 (10th Cir. Oct. 26, 2018): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Richard Gr ...
Martin v. Greisman, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 30213 (10th Cir. Oct. 26, 2018): ORDER AND JUDGMENT* Richard Greisman appeals the district court's order granting in part and denying in part his motion for sanctions and its subsequent order…
Continue Reading

Texts Authenticated by 803(6) Testimony from Carrier Linking Them to Party’s Number + Contents Tying Them to Party — Admissibility: Incoming Texts Only OK for Context If They Are Offered for Non-Hearsay Purpose

Johnson v. State, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 620 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018): After a jury trial, Darius Johnson was found guilty of armed robbery and hijacking a motor vehicle in connection with the robbery of ...
Johnson v. State, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 620 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2018): After a jury trial, Darius Johnson was found guilty of armed robbery and hijacking a motor vehicle in connection with the robbery of a pizza…
Continue Reading

International Discovery: 28 U.S.C. § 1782 Does Not Apply to Arbitration — “Tribunal” Refers to Government-Affiliated Bodies

In re Servotronics, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189423 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2018): This matter is before the court on SERVOTRONICS, INC.'s ("SERVOTRONICS") ex parte application ...
In re Servotronics, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189423 (D.S.C. Nov. 6, 2018): This matter is before the court on SERVOTRONICS, INC.'s ("SERVOTRONICS") ex parte application for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to take discovery for…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Court Has Inherent Power to Impose Monetary Sanction for Violation of Vexatious Litigant Order — Due Process Satisfied by Court Warning and Warning in Order Itself

Konarski v. City of Tucson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26459, 2018 WL 4462198 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* ...
Konarski v. City of Tucson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26459, 2018 WL 4462198 (9th Cir. Sept. 18, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* Frank, Gabriela, Patricia, John, and Frank E. Konarski appeal pro se from the district court's order imposing monetary…
Continue Reading

Expert Testimony: While Handwriting Analysis ≠ a Science, It Is an Experience-Based Expertise That, If Reliable, May Be Admitted — Videotaped Depositions in Criminal Trials: Admissibility Factors

United States v. Mallory, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24683 (6th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018) (compare the case posted on 6/2/16 rejecting handwriting analysis as a proper subject of expert testimony):
United States v. Mallory, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24683 (6th Cir. Aug. 30, 2018) (compare the case posted on 6/2/16 rejecting handwriting analysis as a proper subject of expert testimony): A jury convicted Kurt Mallory, Margaret McKnight, and Susan…
Continue Reading

Vexatious Litigant Injunctions — 2d Circuit Standards — Injunction Should Not Categorically Bar Suits But Require Prior Court OK — Injunction Shouldn’t Extend Fully to State Court But May, e.g., Require Injunction Order to Be Appended to State Court

Vassel v. Firststorm Props. 2 LLC, 2018 WL 4492442 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2018): *1 Paul Anthony Vassel, pro se, sued several individuals and entities in connection with a foreclosure proceeding initiated against him after he allegedly defaulted on a mortgage. The district court dismissed Vassel’s complaint as barred by ...
Vassel v. Firststorm Props. 2 LLC, 2018 WL 4492442 (2d Cir. Sept. 19, 2018): *1 Paul Anthony Vassel, pro se, sued several individuals and entities in connection with a foreclosure proceeding initiated against him after he allegedly defaulted on a…
Continue Reading

Spoliation of Tangible Evidence (Video) — 11th Circuit Factors + Bad Faith Required for Adverse Inference — Concession That Video Might’ve Aided Other Side Negates Prejudice, As Does Fact Court Credited Testimony of Non-Spoliating Party

Alston v. City of Darien, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26621, 2018 WL 4492422 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: After George Alston was arrested for a minor t ...
Alston v. City of Darien, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26621, 2018 WL 4492422 (11th Cir. Sept. 19, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: After George Alston was arrested for a minor traffic violation, he brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 …
Continue Reading
Previous72737475767778Next

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