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 15(b)(2) Amendment of Complaint by Implied Consent: “Notice of a Claim Is Defendant’s Entitlement, Not Defendant’s Burden” — Can’t “Superimpose New (Untried) Theory on Evidence Introduced for Other Purposes” (Good Quotes)

In re Fustolo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19496 (1st Cir. July 16, 2018): Following trial on The Patriot Group, LLC's ("Patriot") adversary complaint requesting denial of the discharge in bankruptcy of ...
In re Fustolo, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19496 (1st Cir. July 16, 2018): Following trial on The Patriot Group, LLC's ("Patriot") adversary complaint requesting denial of the discharge in bankruptcy of Steven Fustolo's ("Fustolo") debt, the bankruptcy court allowed…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Failure to Disclose Corp. Officer Would Give Expert Testimony — Fact Adversary Knew He’d Testify Doesn’t Eliminate Prejudice — Rule 13(a): Counterclaim Is Compulsory Only If It Existed When Complaint Filed

Karum Holdings LLC v. Lowe's Cos., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19269 (7th Cir. July 13, 2018): When Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's Inc.) expanded its retail home ...
Karum Holdings LLC v. Lowe's Cos., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19269 (7th Cir. July 13, 2018): When Lowe's Companies, Inc. (Lowe's Inc.) expanded its retail home improvement stores into Mexico, Lowe's Companies Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Lowe's…
Continue Reading

Appellate Jurisdiction — Even Though Motion to Reconsider Tolls Time to Appeal Until It’s Decided, It Does Not Extend Time If Made & Resolved before Judgment Entered — No Penalty or Benefit from Prematurely Filing Post-Judgment Motion

Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15367 (9th Cir. June 7, 2018): This appeal is the latest in an ongoing and bizarre dispute between Havensight Capital LLC (Ha ...
Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15367 (9th Cir. June 7, 2018): This appeal is the latest in an ongoing and bizarre dispute between Havensight Capital LLC (Havensight) and Nike, Inc. (Nike). Throughout these proceedings, …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Court Can Take Judicial Notice of the Fact That Search Engines Index Web Content and Dynamically Return Relevant Search Results in Response to User-Entered Search Terms

Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104510, 2018 WL 3067985 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018): Plaintiff Brian K. Carter brings this trademark infringement action against Defendant O ...
Carter v. Oath Holdings, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104510, 2018 WL 3067985 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2018): Plaintiff Brian K. Carter brings this trademark infringement action against Defendant Oath Holdings, Inc. Compl., ECF 1-1. Defendant filed a motion…
Continue Reading

§1782: Sworn Statement of Intent to File Foreign Criminal Complaint Satisfies “Foreign Tribunal” Requirement, Ability to Inject Evidence = “For Use” & Makes Movant Interested Party, As Does Circumscribed Ability to Appeal

In re Furstenberg Fin. SAS & Marc Bataillon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116391 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018): Furstenberg Finance SAS and Marc Bataillon (together, the "petitioners") have appl ...
In re Furstenberg Fin. SAS & Marc Bataillon, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116391 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018): Furstenberg Finance SAS and Marc Bataillon (together, the "petitioners") have applied, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, for an order for…
Continue Reading

While Court Has Jurisdiction under §1782 over Counsel in District Holding Docs/Discovery of Foreign Client, It Is Abuse of Discretion to Order Production — Would Undermine Client/Counsel Confidentiality — Importance of Protective Orders

Kiobel v. Cravath, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18755 (2d Cir. July 10 2018): Petitioner-Appellee Esther Kiobel filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New Yo ...
Kiobel v. Cravath, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18755 (2d Cir. July 10 2018): Petitioner-Appellee Esther Kiobel filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to subpoena documents under 28 U.S.C. § …
Continue Reading

RICO Standing: Only the Bankruptcy Estate Has Post-Petition Standing to Assert RICO Claims That Accrued Prior to Plaintiff’s Filing Bankruptcy Proceedings

In re Beckford, 2018 WL 3323347 (2d Cir. July 6, 2018): SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Alman Beckford, pro se, filed for bankruptcy in 2013. After Appellee Bayview Loan Services, LLC (“Bayview”) moved to lift the automatic stay to continue foreclosure proceedings, Beckford began an adversarial proceeding i ...
In re Beckford, 2018 WL 3323347 (2d Cir. July 6, 2018): SUMMARY ORDER Appellant Alman Beckford, pro se, filed for bankruptcy in 2013. After Appellee Bayview Loan Services, LLC (“Bayview”) moved to lift the automatic stay to continue foreclosure proceedings,…
Continue Reading

Civil Contempt against Non-Party Immediately Appealable — “More Rigorous” Abuse of Discretion Review — Civil Contempt Factors — Compensatory Sanctions Vesting Securities in Injured Party Civil Where Offender Could Moot Them by Paying Jmt

Weston Capital Advisors, Inc. v. PT Bank Mutiara, TBK, 2018 WL 3098820 (2d Cir. June 25, 2018) (non-precedential): SUMMARY ORDER *1 Petitioner-Appellant Weston Capital Advisors, Inc., along with ten affiliated corporate Appellants (“the Weston entities”) and its principal, Appellant John Li ...
Weston Capital Advisors, Inc. v. PT Bank Mutiara, TBK, 2018 WL 3098820 (2d Cir. June 25, 2018) (non-precedential): SUMMARY ORDER *1 Petitioner-Appellant Weston Capital Advisors, Inc., along with ten affiliated corporate Appellants (“the Weston entities”) and its principal, Appellant John…
Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Evidence: Party Facing Objection on Admissibility Need Only Explain Admissible Form Anticipated at Trial — SJ Opponent Must Present More Than Scintilla of Evidence to Establish Genuine Issue of Material Fact

Gonzalez v. Hospitality, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112707 (M.D. Tenn. July 6, 2018): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Embassy Suites has filed a ...
Gonzalez v. Hospitality, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112707 (M.D. Tenn. July 6, 2018): MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Embassy Suites has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 12), to which Sandy Brito Gonzalez has filed…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions Must Be (1) Just & (2) Specifically Related to Claim at Issue in Discovery — Court Can’t Create New Federal Law of Veil-Piercing But Can Preclude Claims/Draw Adverse Inference to Get There — If Rules Enough, No IHP

Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc., 2018 WL 3293212 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018):   *1 In this unusual case, Appellant Clientron Corp. is actually the prevailing party below and holds a judgment against Appellee Devon IT, Inc. worth over $7 million. Clientron claims, however, that it is unable to recover because Devon IT is ...
Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc., 2018 WL 3293212 (3d Cir. July 5, 2018):   *1 In this unusual case, Appellant Clientron Corp. is actually the prevailing party below and holds a judgment against Appellee Devon IT, Inc. worth over $7…
Continue Reading
Previous86878889909192Next

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