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 — Failure to Respond to Discovery for 5 Mos., Despite Court Orders = Flagrant Disregard, Merits Dismissal — No Need to Consider Lesser Sanctions Where Determination They’d Be Ineffective “Radiates from” Opin. (Good Quotes)

Lyons v. O’Quinn, 2018 WL 4031032 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2018): *1 Jackie Lyons appeals the district court’s order dismissing his suit as a discovery sanction, and another order denying his motion for reconsideration of three prior orders. The district court found that Mr. Lyons’ failure to respond to disco ...
Lyons v. O’Quinn, 2018 WL 4031032 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2018): *1 Jackie Lyons appeals the district court’s order dismissing his suit as a discovery sanction, and another order denying his motion for reconsideration of three prior orders. The district …
Continue Reading

Even When Intentional Spoliation Occurs, Court Has Discretion Not to Issue Adverse Inference Instruction Or Other Severe Sanction — Ultimately, Significance of Spoliation Evidence Is for the Jury to Weigh

Lexpath Techs. Holdings v. Welch, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21034 (3d Cir. July 30, 2018): * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitu ...
Lexpath Techs. Holdings v. Welch, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21034 (3d Cir. July 30, 2018): * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Defendant-Appellee, Brian Welch, …
Continue Reading

Text Admissibility: Co-Conspirator Exception to Hearsay Rule — Required Showing (3 Prongs + Independent Evidence of Conspiracy) Satisfied

United States v. Hill, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21284 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018): PER CURIAM: This is a healthcare kickback case involving a pharmacy, a marketing company, and ...
United States v. Hill, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21284 (11th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018): PER CURIAM: This is a healthcare kickback case involving a pharmacy, a marketing company, and a group of sales representatives nicknamed "Team Cream." The pharmacy …
Continue Reading

Email Evid.: Party’s Production of Email with Employee’s Name & Co. Signature Authenticates It; Email = Admission; 2nd Level Hearsay OK As Verbal Act — Expert Report OK on SJ If Accompanied by Sworn Certification, Needn’t Itself Be Sworn

Am. Fedn. of Musicians of the United States v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25570 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018): Since at least 1946, major motion picture studios and the ...
Am. Fedn. of Musicians of the United States v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25570 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018): Since at least 1946, major motion picture studios and the musicians, conductors, and orchestras who score motion …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions OK for Repeatedly Rearguing Matters Already Ordered & Being “Unnecessarily Argumentative” with Judge — Rule 11: Least Severe Sanctions — §1927 Indifferent to Equities of Dispute & Winners v. Losers (Good Quotes)

Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25547 (8th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018): In this consolidated products liability suit appeal, Jan Vallejo challenges the district court's
Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25547 (8th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018): In this consolidated products liability suit appeal, Jan Vallejo challenges the district court's1 order limiting the scope of her general causation [*2]  phase discovery.…
Continue Reading

RICO Enterprise: Mere Existence of Servicing Contract Between Defendants Insufficient to State Associated-in-Fact Enterprise

Stitt v. Citibank, N.A., 2018 WL 4090104 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2018): MEMORANDUM* *1 Appellants Gloria and Ronald Stitt and Mark and Terri Louise Zirlott appeal from three district court orders, entered in a case where they were complaining about post-default property inspections. On January 6, 2015, th ...
Stitt v. Citibank, N.A., 2018 WL 4090104 (9th Cir. Aug. 28, 2018): MEMORANDUM* *1 Appellants Gloria and Ronald Stitt and Mark and Terri Louise Zirlott appeal from three district court orders, entered in a case where they were complaining about…
Continue Reading

Appeals: The Pendency of a Motion for Sanctions after a Dismissal on the Merits Does Not Bar Appellate Jurisdiction over Merits Dismissal

Sopkin v. Mendelson, 2018 WL 3524593 (4th Cir. July 23, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Barbara Sopkin appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her lawsuit filed both derivatively on behalf of Interlase Limited Partnership and as assignee of Lucre Investments Ltd, which Sopkin purports assigned to her a 2% general par ...
Sopkin v. Mendelson, 2018 WL 3524593 (4th Cir. July 23, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Barbara Sopkin appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her lawsuit filed both derivatively on behalf of Interlase Limited Partnership and as assignee of Lucre Investments Ltd,…
Continue Reading

Text Admissibility: Court May Place Reasonable Limitations on the Presentation of Cumulative Text Evidence, Limiting Counsel to Counsel’s Choice of 10 Best Messages for Impeachment Where Use of All Would Have Been Time Consuming, Inflammatory

People v. Adekunle Olobayo Aisony, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6051 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018): In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, defendant ...
People v. Adekunle Olobayo Aisony, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6051 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018): In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, defendant and appellant Adekunle Olobayo-Aisony was charged with criminal threats…
Continue Reading

Rule 11(b)(2) Sanctions: Relitigating in Rule 60(b) Motion Same Issues Previously Lost Is Legally Indefensible, As Is Arguing Merits when Default Judgment Was Entered

M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc., 2018 WL 4191098 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Richard C. King, Jr., Mary Ellen King, and the King Law Group, PLLC, appeal an imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(b)(2) in the amount of $39,325.63. We affirm. I. This appeal is part of a series of ...
M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc., 2018 WL 4191098 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Richard C. King, Jr., Mary Ellen King, and the King Law Group, PLLC, appeal an imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(b)(2) in the…
Continue Reading

YouTube Admissibility: Still Photos from Music Video Showing Defendant Holding Apparently Same Gun He Is Charged with Possessing Not Unduly Prejudicial under 403, Not Offered for Propensity in Violation of 404(b)

United States v. Washington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148887 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018): This matter is before the Court on Defendant Darrius Washington's motion [110] for a new trial pursuant to
United States v. Washington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148887 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018): This matter is before the Court on Defendant Darrius Washington's motion [110] for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of …
Continue Reading
Previous80818283848586Next

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