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

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Interstate Compact

Longson v. Nebraska, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46874 (D. Neb. Mar. 22, 2018): Because Petitioner is set to serve his two-day jail sanctions for a violation of his conditions of probation this coming Saturday and because he seeks a stay, I have expedited this initial review1 of Petit ...
Longson v. Nebraska, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46874 (D. Neb. Mar. 22, 2018): Because Petitioner is set to serve his two-day jail sanctions for a violation of his conditions of probation this coming Saturday and because he seeks a stay,…
Continue Reading

Removal: In What Circumstances Is a Third Party Complaint Removable?

Druivenga v. Hillshire Brands Co.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33130 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 1, 2018):  Did The Hillshire Brands Company timely remove this action, involving what was originally a third-part ...
Druivenga v. Hillshire Brands Co.,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33130 (N.D. Iowa Mar. 1, 2018):  Did The Hillshire Brands Company timely remove this action, involving what was originally a third-party claim by Mark Druivenga, d/b/a Contract Welding & Mechanical, against…
Continue Reading

Revocation of Permission to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Appropriate Rule 11 Sanction for Misrepresentation — Appeals:: Issues Not Specifically & Distinctly Raised & Argued in Opening Brief Not Considered

DeVaughn v. Mannion, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4468 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2018) (unpublished): California state prisoner Michael Owen DeVaughn appeals pro se from the district court's order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action revoking his application to proceed in forma pauperis as a sanction under
DeVaughn v. Mannion, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 4468 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2018) (unpublished): California state prisoner Michael Owen DeVaughn appeals pro se from the district court's order in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action revoking his application to proceed…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — Dismissal: Factors — Violation of Order Enough, Even If Discovery Provided Late — Date for Pretrial Order Does Not Supersede 26(a)(3) Deadline for List of Witnesses and Exhibits Where Pretrial Order Due After 26(a)(3) List

Norris v MK Holdings, Inc., 2018 WL 2324256, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13260 (6th Cir. May 22, 2018): *1 Ceil Walker Norris, individually and in her role as a trustee of several family trusts, and on behalf of her business, Walker & Associates, Inc., (individually and collectively “Walker”) initiated this actio ...
Norris v MK Holdings, Inc., 2018 WL 2324256, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 13260 (6th Cir. May 22, 2018): *1 Ceil Walker Norris, individually and in her role as a trustee of several family trusts, and on behalf of her business, …
Continue Reading

Contracts: The First-Breach Rule, Holding That the Party Who Commits the First Breach Cannot Complain about a Subsequent Breach by the Other Party, Applies Even If the Later Breaching Party Is Ignorant of the First Breach When It Breaches

ClubSpecialists Int'l., LLC v. Keeneland Ass'n, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73832 (E.D. Ky. May 2, 2018): This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plain ...
ClubSpecialists Int'l., LLC v. Keeneland Ass'n, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73832 (E.D. Ky. May 2, 2018): This matter is before the Court on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff ClubSpecialists Intl., LLC and Defendant and Intervenor Defendant Keeneland…
Continue Reading

RICO — Res Judicata: State Law Determines Preclusive Effect of Prior State Court Actions on Subsequent RICO Claim — Colorado River Abstention: Factors

Baek v. Clausen, 886 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2018): Clark & Leland Condominiums, LLC (“C & L”), and its shareholders, Heung Baek and Hyun Baek-Lee (collectively “the Baeks”), brought this action against Northside Community Bank (“NCB”) and several of its employees, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Org ...
Baek v. Clausen, 886 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2018): Clark & Leland Condominiums, LLC (“C & L”), and its shareholders, Heung Baek and Hyun Baek-Lee (collectively “the Baeks”), brought this action against Northside Community Bank (“NCB”) and several of its…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Arbitration Waivers in Employee Contracts OK — FAA Savings Clause Applies Only to General Contractual Defenses, Not Deference to Statute Applying Only to Some Ks — Good Quotes on Precedent, Ejusdem Generis, Harmonizing Stats

Epic Sys.
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3086 (U.S. May 21, 2018): Should employees and employers be allowed to agree that any disputes between them will be resolved through one-on-one arbitration? Or should employees always be permitted to …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions for Extrajudicial (Prelitigation) Misconduct — Stealing Documents — & Using Them in Lit. = Manipulation of/Interference with Judicial Process — Dismissal Requires Clear and Convincing Evidence — No Warning Required Here

Xyngular v. Schenkel, 2018 WL 2208472 (10th Cir. May 15, 2018): *1 Marc Schenkel appeals the dismissal by the district court of his claims against Xyngular Corporation and various third parties as a sanction for abuse of what he claims was pre-litigation discovery. Because we have not previously decided whether pre-li ...
Xyngular v. Schenkel, 2018 WL 2208472 (10th Cir. May 15, 2018): *1 Marc Schenkel appeals the dismissal by the district court of his claims against Xyngular Corporation and various third parties as a sanction for abuse of what he claims…
Continue Reading

Rule 902(11) Declaration Signed 19 Months after Business Record Provided, Unattached to & Not Identifying It Excluded As Boilerplate — Connection between IP Address & Real-World Location = Expert Testimony (702, Not 701)

Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 449, 2018 PA Super 112 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 4, 2018): In this consolidated appeal, Ayyakkannu Manivannan ("Appellant"), appeals from the judgm ...
Commonwealth v. Manivannan, 2018 Pa. Super. LEXIS 449, 2018 PA Super 112 (Pa. Super. Ct. May 4, 2018): In this consolidated appeal, Ayyakkannu Manivannan ("Appellant"), appeals from the judgment of sentence of four and one-half years of probation, imposed …
Continue Reading

Voicemail Admissibility: Authenticating Aff. Must Include Both Caller & Recipient Nos. — §1746 Declaration Omitting “Penalty of Perjury” Out — Summary Judgment: Not Court’s Duty to Sift Thru Evidence, Nuances, Inconsistencies (Good Quote)

Thomas v. Credit Mgmt., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83685 (N.D. Ind. May 17, 2018): The Plaintiff, Evonne Thomas, alleges that the Defendant, Credit Management, LP, violated the Fair Debt Co ...
Thomas v. Credit Mgmt., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83685 (N.D. Ind. May 17, 2018): The Plaintiff, Evonne Thomas, alleges that the Defendant, Credit Management, LP, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by impermissibly communicating with the Plaintiff's …
Continue Reading
Previous91929394959697Next

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