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

Removal: Unserved Forum Defendant May Not Remove Diversity Action (Case Law Split — See Our Post of January 8, 2017)

Higgins v. City of Savannah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21045, 2018 WL 777164 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2018): ORDER Pro se plaintiff Janet Higgins fell and was injured while crossing River Street in Savannah, Georgia. Doc. 1-2 at 12, ¶ 12. She contends that the City of Savannah and various individual defen ...
Higgins v. City of Savannah, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21045, 2018 WL 777164 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 8, 2018): ORDER Pro se plaintiff Janet Higgins fell and was injured while crossing River Street in Savannah, Georgia. Doc. 1-2 at 12, ¶…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power: Bankruptcy Court Power to Sanction for Violation of Order Entered under Title 11 Unaffected by Stern v. Marshall — Due Process: Hearing Required Where Factual Issue Exists As to Whether Misrepresentation Was Made

In re Reed (Critique Servs., LLC v. Reed), 2018 WL 1939732 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018): *1 The bankruptcy court1 sanctioned Ross H. Briggs for contempt of an order and for misleading the court. The district court2< ...
In re Reed (Critique Servs., LLC v. Reed), 2018 WL 1939732 (8th Cir. Apr. 25, 2018): *1 The bankruptcy court1 sanctioned Ross H. Briggs for contempt of an order and for misleading the court. The district court2 affirmed.…
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Foreign Corporations Are Not Subject to Liability under the Alien Tort Statute

Jesner v. Arab Bank, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2631 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018)  (Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-1, and II-C, in which Robert ...
Jesner v. Arab Bank, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 2631 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018)  (Kennedy, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-B-1, and II-C, in which Roberts, C.…
Continue Reading

Hearsay: Texts Admissible under Coconspirator Exemption (801(d)(2)(E)) If Court Finds It Probable Declarant & Party Were Members of Conspiracy & Text Furthered It — Adoptive Admission of Third Party Texts by One Conspirator

United States v. Brown, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67239 (D. R.I. Apr. 18, 2018): Before the Court are a series of pretrial motions filed by both the government and the defendant Devon Brown. The g ...
United States v. Brown, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67239 (D. R.I. Apr. 18, 2018): Before the Court are a series of pretrial motions filed by both the government and the defendant Devon Brown. The government has charged Mr. Brown…
Continue Reading

Rule 11: Bad Faith If Atty Knowingly or Recklessly Raises Frivolous Argument, Argues Meritorious Claim to Harass, Delays or Disrupts Case or Hampers Enforcement of Order — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion (11th Cir.)

Jackson v. Jackson (In re Jackson), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9804, 2018 WL 1791991 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal, Matthew and Velma Jacks ...
Jackson v. Jackson (In re Jackson), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9804, 2018 WL 1791991 (11th Cir. Apr. 16, 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: In this consolidated appeal, Matthew and Velma Jackson, Pennsylvania attorneys proceeding pro se, challenge several orders…
Continue Reading

RICO: Racketeering Activity Leading to Loss of Work Comp Benefits ≠ Injury to Business or Property — While Professional Medical Provider’s Loss of Reimbursement Constitutes Injury, Romantic Partner’s Loss Does Not

Gucwa v. Lawley, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9428 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2018): This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of Mark Marusza's and Nancy Gucwa's complaint, which alle ...
Gucwa v. Lawley, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9428 (6th Cir. Apr. 16, 2018): This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of Mark Marusza's and Nancy Gucwa's complaint, which alleged four causes of action. Marusza suffered a serious …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Rule 11 Fine for Repleading in Amended Complaint Claims Dismissed without Leave to Replead — § 1927 Imposes Continuing Duty to Correct or Withdraw — Key Question Is When It Became Obvious the Claim or Defense Should Be Withdrawn

Regions Bank v. Kaplan, 2018 WL 1833045 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2018): *1 The District Judge has tasked me with reporting and recommending to her the appropriate dispositions on the sanctions motions filed by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Regions Bank (Regions), Counter Defendant Robert Shaw (Shaw), and Cross Defendant Bridg ...
Regions Bank v. Kaplan, 2018 WL 1833045 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 1, 2018): *1 The District Judge has tasked me with reporting and recommending to her the appropriate dispositions on the sanctions motions filed by Plaintiff/Counter Defendant Regions Bank (Regions), Counter…
Continue Reading

Class Actions — Ascertainability: Must the Plaintiffs Show, in Addition to an Objective Criterion, an Administratively Feasible Mechanism to Determine Whether Putative Members Fall within Class Definition? — Circuit Split

Belcher v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61452 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2018): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter comes before the Court upon Pla ...
Belcher v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61452 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 9, 2018): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Timothy J. Belcher's ("Belcher") Motion for Class Certification ("Motion")(Doc. 59), to which…
Continue Reading

Rule 41(a) and 41(d) 2-Dismissal Rules Don’t Apply If First Dismissal Is Involuntary — Inherent Power Sanctions Cannot Be Imposed Absent Notice They Are Under Consideration — “Fleeting References” in Motion Don’t Satisfy Due Process

Platinum Logistics, Inc. v. Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc., 2017 WL 7689644 (9th Cir. 2017): MEMORANDUM* In this case, Platinum Logistics, Inc. brought its third suit against Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc.. After Platinum Logistics filed the present action, Platinum Cargo requested and the district court awar ...
Platinum Logistics, Inc. v. Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc., 2017 WL 7689644 (9th Cir. 2017): MEMORANDUM* In this case, Platinum Logistics, Inc. brought its third suit against Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc.. After Platinum Logistics filed the present action, Platinum Cargo requested …
Continue Reading

Rule 38 Sanctions Precluded Absent Separate Motion — Arguing in Brief Inadequate

Madura v. BAC Home Loans Serv’g, LP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24409 (11th Cir. Dec.4, 2017): PER CURIAM: Andrzej Madura and Anna Dolinska-Madura ("the Maduras"), pro se, appeal the district court's denial of their motion requesting that the court docket and preserve original loan documents in their foreclosure proce ...
Madura v. BAC Home Loans Serv’g, LP, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24409 (11th Cir. Dec.4, 2017): PER CURIAM: Andrzej Madura and Anna Dolinska-Madura ("the Maduras"), pro se, appeal the district court's denial of their motion requesting that the court docket…
Continue Reading
Previous949596979899100Next

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