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

§ 1927 & Inherent Power Sanctions for Not Correcting Once True Statement for 1½ Years after It Became False — Fees on Fees for Both — Punitive Sanction: If Some Part of $6,000 Fine Is Non-Compensatory, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Needed

Gibson v. Credit Suisse Grp. Secs. (USA) LLC, 2018 WL 1958727 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018): *1 Plaintiffs’ counsel appeal the imposition of sanctions against them. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s award of the sanctions after ...
Gibson v. Credit Suisse Grp. Secs. (USA) LLC, 2018 WL 1958727 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018): *1 Plaintiffs’ counsel appeal the imposition of sanctions against them. The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s award of the sanctions after Plaintiffs’ counsel …
Continue Reading

Fraudulent Inducement As an Exception to the Economic Loss Rule

Arena Rest. & Lounge LLC v. S. Glazer's Wine & Spirits, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60981 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018): Plaintiffs Arena Restaurant and Lounge LLC, Pacifica Restaurants, LLC, Vi ...
Arena Rest. & Lounge LLC v. S. Glazer's Wine & Spirits, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60981 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2018): Plaintiffs Arena Restaurant and Lounge LLC, Pacifica Restaurants, LLC, Vine and Barrel LLC, and Daniel Flores ("Plaintiffs")…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence — Google Maps and Satellite Imagery

State v. Bradford, 2018-Ohio-1417, 2018-Ohio-1417, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1560 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018):  [*1]  [**1]  Defendant-appellant Maurice L. Bradford ("ap ...
State v. Bradford, 2018-Ohio-1417, 2018-Ohio-1417, 2018 Ohio App. LEXIS 1560 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 12, 2018):  [*1]  [**1]  Defendant-appellant Maurice L. Bradford ("appellant") appeals his bench trial convictions for two felonies of the third degree: shooting a firearm over…
Continue Reading

Federal Arbitration Act: Jurisdiction to Confirm/Vacate: Although Circuits Are Split on Whether Amount in Controversy Is Determined by Award or Amount at Issue, Cases Turn on Whether Party Seeking to Vacate Also Seeks to Reopen

XPO Last Mile Inc. v. Anessa's Transp. Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63927 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING JURISDICTION Pursuant to t ...
XPO Last Mile Inc. v. Anessa's Transp. Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63927 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018): ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING JURISDICTION Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., Petitioner …
Continue Reading

Hearsay: Emails Hours After Events ≠ Business Records — Backward-Looking Statements ≠ 803(3) Mental Intent — Each Email in Chain Separately Analyzed (805) — Complaints in FTC, Better Business Bureau OK for Notice, Adjudications Out

In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59633 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2018): In anticipation of the upcoming trial among the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and remaining defendants, the ...
In re Processed Egg Prods. Antitrust Litig., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59633 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 9, 2018): In anticipation of the upcoming trial among the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and remaining defendants, the parties filed 21 motions in limine.…
Continue Reading

Does a Magistrate Judge Have Power to Resolve Post-Judgment Discovery Issues? — First Impression (Yes) — Privilege: Witness Must Take Stand & Assert Fifth & Attorney-Client on Question-by-Question Basis — Elements of Summary Criminal Contempt

In re Deposition of LeFande, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30203 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2018): Attorney Matthew LeFande has moved to vacate a criminal contempt order issued against him by the Magistrate Judge when he refused to take the stand and be sworn for the deposition that was scheduled to take place on September 21, 2017 in the Magis ...
In re Deposition of LeFande, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30203 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2018): Attorney Matthew LeFande has moved to vacate a criminal contempt order issued against him by the Magistrate Judge when he refused to take the stand and …
Continue Reading

“Conclusory & Often Shifting Testimony” Can’t Defeat SJ — Rule 11 Sanctions for Party’s “Remarkable” Failure to “Settle[] on Basic Facts … Easily Accessible to” Her 5 Years into the Case—No Sxs for Novel Legal Theory (Good Quotes)

Hutter v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 580630 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2018): *1 Plaintiff-appellant Nance M. Hutter (“Plaintiff” or “Hutter”) and appellant Stephen A. Katz (“Katz”), an attorney proceeding pro se, appeal from the June 12, 2017 judgment of the District Court. As relevant here, ...
Hutter v. Countrywide Bank, N.A., 2018 WL 580630 (2d Cir. Jan. 29, 2018): *1 Plaintiff-appellant Nance M. Hutter (“Plaintiff” or “Hutter”) and appellant Stephen A. Katz (“Katz”), an attorney proceeding pro se, appeal from the June 12, 2017 judgment of …
Continue Reading

Hearsay: A Court Judgment Or Ruling Is Inadmissible Hearsay If It Is Offered to Prove the Truth of the Matter Asserted — Must Be Offered for Non-Hearsay Purpose, Like Effect on the Listener

UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 870 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2017): UnitedHealth Group sued several insurers in the [**2]  District of Minnesota, seekin ...
UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. Exec. Risk Specialty Ins. Co., 870 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2017): UnitedHealth Group sued several insurers in the [**2]  District of Minnesota, seeking indemnity and defense costs for underlying litigation settlements under its professional liability…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — When Preclusion (Here of Damages Computation Not Disclosed Per 26(a)(1)) Will Result in Functional Dismissal of the Case, Finding of Willfulness, Fault or Bad Faith Is Required, and Lesser Sanctions Must Be Considered

Tablizo v. City of Las Vegas, 2018 WL 1979048 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2018): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant Cely Tablizo appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee the City of Las Vegas. We have jurisdiction under
Tablizo v. City of Las Vegas, 2018 WL 1979048 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2018): MEMORANDUM* Plaintiff-Appellant Cely Tablizo appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee the City of Las Vegas. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § …
Continue Reading

Social Media Video (YouTube/Facebook) Authenticated by Evid. of Download, Contents — No Need for Creator or Cert. from Website — Lay Opinion OK If Wit. in Better Position Than Jury to Identify Person, Object, Voice (Collecting Cases)

Lamb v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 6086 (Fla. Ct. App. May 2, 2018): The defendant appeals from his convictions, arising from a carjacking, for grand theft of a vehicle and grand theft. The defendant ...
Lamb v. State, 2018 Fla. App. LEXIS 6086 (Fla. Ct. App. May 2, 2018): The defendant appeals from his convictions, arising from a carjacking, for grand theft of a vehicle and grand theft. The defendant primarily argues that the …
Continue Reading
Previous92939495969798Next

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