Complex Lit Blog

RICO Conspiracy: (1) Fourth Circuit’s 3-Part Test Requires Conspiring to Operate or Manage the Enterprise (Minority Rule Following Salinas) — (2) Conspirator Need Not Personally Commit Any Predicate Acts — Sufficient That S/he Agreed That One Member of the Conspiracy Commit At Least 2 Predicate Acts — Unnecessary to Identify Specific Racketeering Acts That The Defendant Agreed Would Be Committed — “The Object Of A Rico Conspiracy Is To Engage In Racketeering, Not To Commit Each Predicate Racketeering Act” — Necessary to Prove Only The Defendant Agreed to Pursue The Same Criminal Objective As the Enterprise — (4) Because A Racketeering Conspiracy Is Not Contingent On Specific Predicates, A Jury May Convict On A RICO Conspiracy Charge While Acquitting Defendant On Predicate Acts

United States v. Hunt, 99 F.4th 161 (4th Cir. 2024): This appeal arises from the prosecution of the “36th Street Bang Squad” (the “Bang Squad”), a gang that committed a string of murders, attempted murders, and assaults in 2015 and 2017. The United States charged seven of the gang’s members — Martin Hunt, Deshaun Richardson, Eric Nixon, Xavier Greene, Raymond Palmer, ...

Circuit Split — Derivative Actions — Third Circuit Joins Majority of Circuits in Holding That Dismissal Decisions on Grounds of Futility Are Subject to De Novo Review, Abandoning Abuse of Discretion — Relevant Factors in Deciding Whether De Novo or Deferential Review Is Appropriate

In re: Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. Derivative Litigation, 101 F.4th 250 (3d Cir. 2024) (en banc): We initiated en banc review of this case to consider what standard of appellate review ought to apply when a district court dismisses a shareholder derivative action for failure to plead demand futility under

In re: Cognizant Tech. Solutions Corp. Derivative Litigation, 101 F.4th 250 (3d Cir. 2024) (en banc): We initiated en banc review of this case to consider what standard of appellate review ought to apply when a district court dismisses a …

RICO: No Domestic Injury Where Investors In Ghana Placed Funds With Ghanaian Investment Firm And Those Funds Were Stolen In Ghana By A Ghanaian Family Domiciled In The US — Irrelevant That Funds Were Transmitted To US entity Owned By Ghanaian-American Defendants — Domestic Injury May Properly Be Decided On Motion To Dismiss — Rejecting A Conduct-Plus-Property Rule: That A RICO Injury Arises In The Place Where A Plaintiff’s Property Is Located At The Time Of The Racketeering Conduct

Percival Partners Ltd. v. Nduom Groupe Nduom USA, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10431, 99 F.4th 696 (4th Cir. 2024): This case began when investors in Ghana placed their funds with a Ghanaian private investment firm, hoping to recoup a profit. Instead, a Ghanaian family domiciled in Virginia allegedly used a web of shell companies across Ghana and the United States to illici ...

Percival Partners Ltd. v. Nduom Groupe Nduom USA, LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10431, 99 F.4th 696 (4th Cir. 2024): This case began when investors in Ghana placed their funds with a Ghanaian private investment firm, hoping to recoup a …

RICO: 9(b) Particularity Applies to Mail and Wire Fraud Allegations; Even Where Some Allegations Are Insufficiently Particular, A Complaint May Satisfy 9(B) If Its Allegations Are Sufficiently Particularized When Taken As A Whole; Four Elements of a § 1962(c)-Based RICO Claim — Appealability: Dismissal without Prejudice Is Appealable If No Leave to Amend Granted, Judgment Entered and Case Closed — Dismissal for Failure to Satisfy 9(b) Treated As 12(b)(6) Dismissal for Failure to State Claim for Relief — Court First Determines Whether 9(b) Satisfied And, If So, Whether 12(b)(6) Is — “Rule 12(b)(6) Motions To Dismiss Are Not Designed To Weigh Evidence Or Consider The Truth Or Falsity Of An Adequately Pled Complaint” (Good Quote)

Clinton v. Sec. Ben. Life Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 1264 (10th Cir. 2023): [*1269] ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are consumers who sued Defendant Security Benefit Life Insurance Company under the ...

Clinton v. Sec. Ben. Life Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 1264 (10th Cir. 2023): [*1269] ROSSMAN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are consumers who sued Defendant Security Benefit Life Insurance Company under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 …

RICO Standing: As Long As Pattern of Racketeering Has Caused Harm to Plaintiff’s Business or Property, Plaintiff Need Not Have Been Injured by Multiple Predicate Acts — Injury from One of the Predicate Acts Suffices to Confer Standing

Pacmar Techs. LLC v. Kao, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231131 (D. Haw. Dec. 29, 2023): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: DEFENDANT DUKE HARTMAN'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED APRIL 21, 2023 [ECF 97]; DEFENDANT/C ...

Pacmar Techs. LLC v. Kao, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231131 (D. Haw. Dec. 29, 2023): ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART: DEFENDANT DUKE HARTMAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, FILED APRIL 21, 2023 [ECF 97]; DEFENDANT/CROSS-CLAIMANT CLIFFORD …

Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute on Liability of Counsel, Unlike § 1927 and Rule 11, Precludes Award

Dragon Intell. Prop. LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024): ...

Dragon Intell. Prop. LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12057 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2024): Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute …

Supreme Court — Federal Arbitration Act — Inherent Power May Be Controlled or Overridden by Statute or Rule — When the District Court Compels Arbitration, It Must Stay and Cannot Dismiss The Federal Action — “Shall Means Shall”

Smith v. Spizzirri, 2024 U.S. LEXIS 2170, 2024 WL 2193872 (U.S. May 16, 2024): The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) sets forth procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. Section 3 of the FAA specifies that, when a dispute is s ...

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Baskin v. EC Paia LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1108 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024): ORDER Defendant-Appellant's motion for attorneys' fees, including the request to assess fees as damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of A ...

Baskin v. EC Paia LLC, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1108 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2024): ORDER Defendant-Appellant’s motion for attorneys’ fees, including the request to assess fees as damages under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for…

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 99 F.4th 368 (7th Cir. 2024):* *Circuit Judge Kanne, a member of the panel, died after the appeals were argued. They are being decided by a quorum.

Alcarez v. Akorn, Inc., 99 F.4th 368 (7th Cir. 2024):* *Circuit Judge Kanne, a member of the panel, died after the appeals were argued. They are being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) Six suits, filed under the…

FRAP 38 Sanctions for Frivolous Claims of Judicial Bias, Citing Non-Existent Cases/Sources, Inventing Quotes from Real Ones, And Exhibiting Inflammatory and Antagonistic Tone — Recusal: “Adverse Rulings Are Not Evidence of Bias” (Good Quote) — Critical Judicial Remarks Ordinarily Do Not Support A Claim of Bias — Circuit-Wide Filing Bar Until $5,000 Fine Paid

Froemming v. City of W. Allis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1817 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER William Froemming sued the City of West Allis, Wisconsin, its police chief, and three police officers raising several c ...

Froemming v. City of W. Allis, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 1817 (7th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER William Froemming sued the City of West Allis, Wisconsin, its police chief, and three police officers raising several constitutional claims under 42 …

Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Circuit Split — Derivative Actions — Third Circuit Joins Majority of Circuits in Holding That Dismissal Decisions on Grounds of Futility Are Subject to De Novo Review, Abandoning Abuse of Discretion — Relevant Factors in Deciding Whether De Novo or Deferential Review Is Appropriate

RICO Standing: As Long As Pattern of Racketeering Has Caused Harm to Plaintiff’s Business or Property, Plaintiff Need Not Have Been Injured by Multiple Predicate Acts — Injury from One of the Predicate Acts Suffices to Confer Standing

Sanctions for “Exceptional” Patent Cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — Liability for Attorneys’ Fees Limited to Parties — Silence of Statute on Liability of Counsel, Unlike § 1927 and Rule 11, Precludes Award

Supreme Court — Federal Arbitration Act — Inherent Power May Be Controlled or Overridden by Statute or Rule — When the District Court Compels Arbitration, It Must Stay and Cannot Dismiss The Federal Action — “Shall Means Shall”

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal May Not Be “Wholly Without Merit” — And Therefore May Not Be Sanctionable — Even If Several of Appellant’s Arguments Are Frivolous; Soundness of Central Arguments May Dominate

Standing: An “Identifiable Trifle” Suffices — PSLRA/Rule 11: District Court Must Make Findings As to Compliance with Rule 11 Whether or Not Asked — Filing Securities Lawsuit to Obtain Immaterial Disclosures Presumptively Violative of Rule 11

Recent Posts

RICO: Indirect Injury Unrecoverable — Indirect Purchaser Rule Imported from Antitrust

RICO: No Causation Where Harm Flowed Several Steps After the Fraudulent Acts — RICO Causation Same As Antitrust Causation

Sanctions vs. Automatic Stay: Imposition of Sanctions (Here, Inherent Power Sanctions) Is Subject to the Police Power Exception to the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy

The Word “Include” May Be A Word of Limitation As Opposed to a Word of Enlargement, Depending on the Context

Spoliation/Sanctions: “A Party Does Not Spoliate Evidence When, Without Notice Of The Evidence’s Potential Relevance, It Destroys The Evidence According To Its Policy Or In The Normal Course Of Its Business” (Good Quote)

Archives

New York Office