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

Privilege: Employees’ Transmission of Purely Factual Info to GC at GC’s Request, to Permit GC to Give Legal Advice, Is Privileged — Test: Is Obtaining/Providing Advice 1 Significant Purpose of Communications? — Facts Still Discoverable

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 892 F.3d 1264 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Kavanaugh, J.):   The pharmaceutical company Boehringer claimed attorney-client privilege over certain documents subpoen ...
FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., 892 F.3d 1264 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Kavanaugh, J.):   The pharmaceutical company Boehringer claimed attorney-client privilege over certain documents subpoenaed by the Federal Trade Commission. The attorney-client privilege [**2]  applies to a communication between…
Continue Reading

Circuit Splits: Court Reluctant to Create Circuit Split, Does So Only If a Compelling Basis Exists — Reluctance Especially Acute If Rules at Issue Are Best Applied Uniformly

Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27445, 2018 WL 4608970 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2018): *** As we have discussed throughout our decision, our holding t ...
Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27445, 2018 WL 4608970 (3d Cir. Sept. 26, 2018): *** As we have discussed throughout our decision, our holding today is in line with that of the Ninth Circuit,…
Continue Reading

Experts Can Rely on Data Provided without Independently Verifying It — Factual Basis Goes to Credibility, Not Admissibility — Proper Subject of Cross

Mighty Enters. v. She Hong Indus. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* She ...
Mighty Enters. v. She Hong Indus. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22670 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* She Hong Industrial appeals from the District Court's entry of final judgment after a jury trial and the District…
Continue Reading

Subsequent Judge Not Bound by Interlocutory Order of Predecessor — May Reconsider It Per Law-of-the-Case Doctrine — Emergence of Circuit Split Can Justify Reconsideration

Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 302 F. Supp. 3d 730 (E.D. Va. 2018): Pending before the Court is an Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 302 F. Supp. 3d 730 (E.D. Va. 2018): Pending before the Court is an Amended Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 135) filed by Defendant Gloucester…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions Apt for Party’s Threats to Sue Witnesses, Opposing Counsel If They Fail to Comply with Demands — District Court Retains Jurisdiction to Sanction During Appeal, Needn’t Explain Why Sanctions Denied

Greene v. Indep. Pilots Ass'n, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28271 (6th Cir. Oct. 4, 2018): Douglas Walter Greene, a pro se plaintiff, appeals the district court's order imposing monetar ...
Greene v. Indep. Pilots Ass'n, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28271 (6th Cir. Oct. 4, 2018): Douglas Walter Greene, a pro se plaintiff, appeals the district court's order imposing monetary sanctions against him and denying his cross-motion for sanctions against…
Continue Reading

Experts: When Testimony Is Based on Experience, Tribunal Determines Reliability with Reference to The Nature of The Issue, The Expert’s Particular Expertise & The Subject of the Testimony

F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta, 900 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2018): F & H Coatings, L.L.C. ("F & H") seeks review of a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm ...
F & H Coatings, LLC v. Acosta, 900 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2018): F & H Coatings, L.L.C. ("F & H") seeks review of a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ("Commission"), and asks us…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Failure to Request Limitation of Award Based on Inability to Pay or to Offer Evidence Showing Same Waives Issue — Does Judge Have Ethical Duty to Refer Offender to Disciplinary Authorities?

Young v. Smith, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27331 (3d Cir. Sept. 25, 2018): Appellant Cynthia Pollick appeals the District Court's order denying her fee petition, imposing sanction ...
Young v. Smith, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27331 (3d Cir. Sept. 25, 2018): Appellant Cynthia Pollick appeals the District Court's order denying her fee petition, imposing sanctions in the aggregate amount of $25,000, and referring Pollick to the Disciplinary …
Continue Reading

Witness Litigation Privilege Gives Absolute Immunity from Civil Action for Testimony & Prep, Bars RICO Claim vs Expert — Common Law Immunities Must Be Expressly Eliminated — Perjury ≠ Predicate Act — Civ, Crim RICO Don’t Always Have Same Reach

Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in administrative hearings for the Federal Black Lung Program. This lawsuit inc ...
Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in …
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Court Can’t Read Improper Purpose into Document Well-Grounded in Fact & Law unless Improper Purpose Is Objectively Ascertainable — Disagreement About Law ≠ Frivolous — Arg. Must’ve Been Rejected by Well-Established Case Law

Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in administrative hearings for the Federal Black Lung Program. This lawsuit in ...
Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 2018 WL 5306886 (4th Cir. Oct. 6, 2018) (2-1 decision): *1 Plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Paul Wheeler and Johns Hopkins Health System et al. for Wheeler’s actions as an expert witness in …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Court May Take Judicial Notice of Wayback Machine (Internet Archive) Documents

Safeway Transit LLC v. Disc. Party Bus, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137185, 2018 WL 3831345 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2018): The parties to this case are Twin Cities party bus proprietors. In September 2015, P ...
Safeway Transit LLC v. Disc. Party Bus, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137185, 2018 WL 3831345 (D. Minn. Aug. 13, 2018): The parties to this case are Twin Cities party bus proprietors. In September 2015, Plaintiff Safeway Transit LLC…
Continue Reading
Previous75767778798081Next

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