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

RICO: § 1962(b) Standing Requires Injury from Defendant’s Acquisition & Maintenance in Enterprise — Under § 1962(c), Defendant Cannot Be Enterprise

Royal Farms, Inc. v. Global Tropical Fresh Fruit Corp., 2006 WL 8437472 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006): *1 Royal Farms, Inc. (Royal), owns and operates a retail chain of supermarkets in the New York metropolitan area. Global Fresh Fruit Corporation (Global), is a supplier of fruit with offices located in Brooklyn, New York. ...
Royal Farms, Inc. v. Global Tropical Fresh Fruit Corp., 2006 WL 8437472 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2006): *1 Royal Farms, Inc. (Royal), owns and operates a retail chain of supermarkets in the New York metropolitan area. Global Fresh Fruit Corporation (Global),…
Continue Reading

RICO: Generalized Allegations of Conspiracy to Defraud Insufficient to State Claim under §1962(c), §1962(d), or Rule 9(b)

McZeal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 2425383 (9th Cir. May 30, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Al McZeal and other plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s dismissal of their action asserting claims based on alleged abuses in the mortgage industry. We have jurisdiction under
McZeal v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 2425383 (9th Cir. May 30, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Al McZeal and other plaintiffs appeal pro se from the district court’s dismissal of their action asserting claims based on alleged abuses in the…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Dismissal Rev’d Absent Findings of (1) Pattern of Delay & (2) Lesser Sanctions Insufficient — Settlement Agreement: Court Retains Jurisdiction to Enforce If It’s Reached before Dismissal by Court — Reassigning Judge = Severe Reprimand

Szanto v. Bistritz, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20782 (11th Cir. July 26, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Peter Szanto, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's sua sponte d ...
Szanto v. Bistritz, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20782 (11th Cir. July 26, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Peter Szanto, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal with prejudice of his complaint against Defendant Joseph Bistritz.…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanction Requires Explicit Finding of Conduct Tantamount to Bad Faith — Court Has Ancillary Enforcement Jurisdiction to Issue Post-Judgment Injunctive Relief When Facing Real Risk Judgment Debtor May Secrete or Dissipate Funds

Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 2018 WL 3627646 (9th Cir July 31, 2018) (amended opinion; unpublished) (amending the opinion excepted in our post of June 11, 2018): AMENDED MEMORANDUM* In an arbitration between Vitaly Smagin and Ashot Yegiazaryan, the London Court of International Arbitration awarded Smagin about $72 million ...
Smagin v. Yegiazaryan, 2018 WL 3627646 (9th Cir July 31, 2018) (amended opinion; unpublished) (amending the opinion excepted in our post of June 11, 2018): AMENDED MEMORANDUM* In an arbitration between Vitaly Smagin and Ashot Yegiazaryan, the London Court of…
Continue Reading

R. 11, §1927, Inherent Power Sanctions: Bad Faith = Knowingly or Recklessly Pursuing Frivolous Claim — Post-Sanctions Reversal of Case on Which Sanctions Based Shows Claim Wasn’t Frivolous, Even Though Precluded under Then-Existing Law

Silva v. Pro Transp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22258 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Juan Antonio Silva appeals a district court order assessing sanctions against hi ...
Silva v. Pro Transp., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22258 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Juan Antonio Silva appeals a district court order assessing sanctions against him and his attorneys. Silva sued his employer, Pro Transport, Inc.,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11(c)(1) Sua Sponte Sanctions — Prior Issuance of Order to Show Cause Is Mandatory — Sending Email Identifying Court’s Concerns Not Enough, Requires Vacatur

Przybysz v. City of Toledo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23103 (6th Ciur. Aug. 20, 2018): Marcia Przybysz appeals the district court's order awarding summary judgment to Sergeant Karrie Wil ...
Przybysz v. City of Toledo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23103 (6th Ciur. Aug. 20, 2018): Marcia Przybysz appeals the district court's order awarding summary judgment to Sergeant Karrie Williams, the City of Toledo, and other officers named as defendants,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11: 10th Cir.’s 5-Factor Dismissal Test Applies to All Sanctions — Doubling Down behind Manipulated Email When Shown Original in Safe Harbor Warning = Bad Faith (Good Quotes)—Post-Goodyear, Can Mkt Fees Be Awarded State Atty? [37(e)]

King v. Fleming, 2018 WL 3863326 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018): *1 Facing a motion to dismiss, the appellants attached a materially altered e-mail (described as an “unofficial version”) to an amended complaint. The appellees notified the appellants that the e-mail was inaccurate, but the appellants refused to ...
King v. Fleming, 2018 WL 3863326 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2018): *1 Facing a motion to dismiss, the appellants attached a materially altered e-mail (described as an “unofficial version”) to an amended complaint. The appellees notified the appellants that the …
Continue Reading

RICO: Probate Estate, Like Bankruptcy Estate, May Constitute Enterprise — Beneficiary Has Standing to Sue for Pillaging — Multiple Other Important Holdings Summarized Up Front

Summary of holdings: Standing/Ripeness:  “[C]laims for "lost debt" injuries—that is, for damages in the form of an owed, but as-yet-uncollected, amount—are unripe when parallel proceedings to collect the amount owed are ongoing in another forum.”   Standing/Ripeness
Summary of holdings: Standing/Ripeness:  “[C]laims for "lost debt" injuries—that is, for damages in the form of an owed, but as-yet-uncollected, amount—are unripe when parallel proceedings to collect the amount owed are ongoing in another forum.”   Standing/Ripeness;  A RICO …
Continue Reading

Text Authentication: Messages Received with Sender’s Name as Recorded on Recipient’s Phone, Contents Known Only to the Two of Them — Photos of Texts Properly Received in Evidence

Tran v. State, 2018 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 841,  2018 WL 3468554 (Ind. Ct. App. July 19, 2018): Statement of the Case P1 James Tran appeals his convictions of nine counts of child mole ...
Tran v. State, 2018 Ind. App. Unpub. LEXIS 841,  2018 WL 3468554 (Ind. Ct. App. July 19, 2018): Statement of the Case P1 James Tran appeals his convictions of nine counts of child molesting, all as Class A felonies…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) Sanctions — $950 Against Counsel for Being 18 Minutes Late to Settlement Conference, Late Filing Mediation Memo ( Lacking Some Info) — Sanction Against Client Reversed: No Evidence It “Was Responsible for Or Even Knew About” Issues

Apelian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3030692 (9th Cir. June 19, 2018): MEMORANDUM*   *1 Appellants Allstate Insurance Company and its trial counsel appeal a magistrate judge’s sanctions award of attorney’s fees of $12,500 plus an additional $500 against Allstate, ...
Apelian v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2018 WL 3030692 (9th Cir. June 19, 2018): MEMORANDUM*   *1 Appellants Allstate Insurance Company and its trial counsel appeal a magistrate judge’s sanctions award of attorney’s fees of $12,500 plus an additional $500 against Allstate, …
Continue Reading
Previous82838485868788Next

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