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

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

§ 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
Previous92939495969798Next

Recent Posts

Rule 37 Default Judgment Sanction: (1) Abuse of Discretion Review = Legal Conclusions De Novo. Factual Findings for Clear Error — (2) Client May Be Sanctioned for Misconduct of Its Counsel, Though Here Client Was Directly Involved in Bad Faith Misbehavior — (3) Is There A Difference, Under Rule 11 As Opposed to Rule 37, Concerning Whether A Client Can Be Sanctioned for Its Counsel’s Misconduct? — (4) While Sanctions of Last Resort (Dismissal/Default) Are Apt Only If Lesser Sanctions Wouldn’t Ensure Compliance, Rule 37 Doesn’t Require the Vain Gesture of First Imposing Lessert Sanctions When It Is Clear They Would be Ineffective — (5) Court’s Reconsideration of Non-Final Orders Is Governed by Rule 54(b), And Court’s Discretion under That Rule Is Governed by the Law-of-the-Case-Doctrine

RICO: (1) Special Pleading Requirements? — (2) Although Enterprise Must Be More Than a Summation of the Predicate Acts, The Predicate Acts Can Demonstrate the Existence of the Enterprise — (3) Requirement That Association-in-Fact Exist For Purposes Other Than Just to Commit Predicate Acts Merely Requires Continuity — (4) To State an Association-in-Fact Enterprise Consisting of One Natural Person and Collection of Legal Fictions Requires Factual Detail As to How They Acted Together — (5) “A § 1962(c) Enterprise Must Be More Than An Association of Individuals Or Entities Conducting the Normal Affairs of a Defendant Corporation” (Good Quote)

RICO: (1) Fee Award May Exceed Amount Recovered — Strict Proportionality Not Required — (2) Nonmonetary Benefits and Injunctive Relief Recovered Also Relevant Factors — (3) Loss on Some Claims Need Not Result in Lowered Fees, Especially When Both Arise Out of The Same Nucleus of Operative Facts

RICO: Indirect Purchasers (Car Buyers/Renters) Lack Standing to Sue Manufacturers for RICO Violations Even Though Intermediaries (Auto Dealer Direct Purchasers) Lack Any Damages

RICO: Statutory Requirement that RICO Be Liberally Construed Does Not Establish a More Liberal Pleading Standard for RICO Claims — “To Be Sure, Adequately Pleading a RICO Claim Can Be Challenging” (Good Quote) — Court May Dismiss Action Pursuant to Rule 41(b) Absent A Motion

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

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