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

Sanctions: §285 Exceptional Case Fees Awarded from Date of Rule 11 Safe Harbor Letter / Motion, Expert Costs Awarded under Inherent Power against Pro Se for Refusing to Hire Needed Counsel, Acting in Bad Faith

Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15571 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2018): Per Curiam. Appellant Xiaohua Huang, proceeding pro se, appeals several rulings from th ...
Xiaohua Huang v. Huawei Techs. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15571 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2018): Per Curiam. Appellant Xiaohua Huang, proceeding pro se, appeals several rulings from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,…
Continue Reading

Appeals: Issue Abandoned by Not Including It in Statement of Issues in Brief & by Presenting No Developed Argument in Support

Hubbard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15331, 2018 WL 2753646 (6th Cir. June 7, 2018): After defaulting on his mortgage and seeing his request for a loan modification deni ...
Hubbard v. Select Portfolio Servicing, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15331, 2018 WL 2753646 (6th Cir. June 7, 2018): After defaulting on his mortgage and seeing his request for a loan modification denied, Sherman Hubbard sued his mortgagee, past mortgage…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Does § 1927 Apply to Pro Se As One Admitted to Conduct Cases? (Inexplicable Circuit Split) — No R .11 for Mere Misapplication of Facts, Law: Even If an Argument is … Unpersuasive, That Doesn’t Mean It’s Frivolous-Good Quote

Ctr. for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89847 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2018): This matter is before the Court on several discovery motions that are ripe for disposition. [D.E. 142, 152, 154, ...
Ctr. for Individual Rights v. Chevaldina, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89847 (S.D. Fla. May 30, 2018): This matter is before the Court on several discovery motions that are ripe for disposition. [D.E. 142, 152, 154, 155, 159, 164, 166,…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Invalidates Civil Contempt Order But Not Sanctions Order

United States v. Akers, 2018 WL 3213718 (10th Cir. July 2, 2018): *1 Montgomery Akers appeals an order imposing filing sanctions and denying his combined motion to reopen habeas proceedings and to recuse the district court judge. We conclude that the motion should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, ...
United States v. Akers, 2018 WL 3213718 (10th Cir. July 2, 2018): *1 Montgomery Akers appeals an order imposing filing sanctions and denying his combined motion to reopen habeas proceedings and to recuse the district court judge. We conclude that …
Continue Reading

RICO Fraud on 100% Owner of Corp. (Parent) Draining (Subsidiary) Corp. Shares of Value and Causing Owner to Sell at Reduced Price Produces Unrecoverable Derivative Damages — Does It Make Sense to Require Asset Sale to Preserve RICO Claim?

Uthe Tech. Corp. v. Aetrium Inc., 2018 WL 3215143 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 This case concerns an appeal of an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in a civil action brought under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organiz ...
Uthe Tech. Corp. v. Aetrium Inc., 2018 WL 3215143 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2018) (unpublished): MEMORANDUM* *1 This case concerns an appeal of an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in a civil action brought under the…
Continue Reading

Wayback Machine: Testimony from Internet Archive Office Manager As to How It Captures & Preserves Screenshots, & Comparing Exhibits to Images Known to Be Accurate = Sufficient Authentication (2d, 3d Cirs.)

United States v. Gasperini, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17999 (2d Cir. July 2, 2018): Fabio Gasperini was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of N ...
United States v. Gasperini, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17999 (2d Cir. July 2, 2018): Fabio Gasperini was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nicholas G. Garaufis, Judge) of …
Continue Reading

DOJ-Drafted Agreement Preserves Attorney-Client Privilege for Info Voluntarily Disclosed to Government Per Rule 502(e) — Privilege (Judicial Proceedings) vs. Confidentiality (Extrajudicial Disclosure) — Waiver As to Third Parties?

United States v. Under Seal (In re Grand Jury 16-3817 (16-4)), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17613 (4th Cir. June 27, 2018): Appellant corporation ("X Corp.")
United States v. Under Seal (In re Grand Jury 16-3817 (16-4)), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 17613 (4th Cir. June 27, 2018): Appellant corporation ("X Corp.")1 and the Government dispute whether a written agreement between them preserved X Corp.'s …
Continue Reading

Tax Returns: Discovery: Compelling Need — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions: Adverse Inference for Disregarding Court Orders; No Warning Needed — R. 37(c)(1) Exclusion: SJ Affidavits from Wit. Not ID’ed in 26(a)(1) Disclosures (Mention at Dep. Insuff.)

Zheng v. Perfect Team Corp., 2018 WL 3133942 (2d Cir. June 26, 2018): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellants Perfect Team Corporation doing business as Guang Zhou ...
Zheng v. Perfect Team Corp., 2018 WL 3133942 (2d Cir. June 26, 2018): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendants-Appellants Perfect Team Corporation doing business…
Continue Reading

R. 37, IHP, §1927 Sanctions: “Punishment Must Fit Crime” — Default Jmt. Factors (6th Cir.) — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion — Failure to Object to R&R Waives Review of DJ’s Adoption — Good Quotes on Playing by Rules, No New Args on Reply

Ecimos, LLC v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, 2018 WL 2459915 (6th Cir. June 1, 2018): At first glance, this case appears complicated. It languished for years in the district court as the magistrate judge and district judge held countless hearings and conferences and issued dozens of rulings. All told, this case sprawled over more than 250 ...
Ecimos, LLC v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, 2018 WL 2459915 (6th Cir. June 1, 2018): At first glance, this case appears complicated. It languished for years in the district court as the magistrate judge and district judge held countless hearings…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(b) Dismissal With Prejudice Requires Willful Conduct, Lesser Sanctions Inadequate — Without Prejudice Generally OK Because Party Can Re-File, Violation of Local Enough (Here, Non-Lawyer as Counsel)

Class v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12361 (11th Cir. May 9, 2018) (unpublished): Rodney Dale Class appeals the district court's sua sponte
Class v. United States Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12361 (11th Cir. May 9, 2018) (unpublished): Rodney Dale Class appeals the district court's sua sponte dismissal without prejudice of his pro se civil lawsuit, filed on behalf …
Continue Reading
Previous87888990919293Next

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