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

September 2018

Inability to Pay Irrelevant under RICO §1964(c) & R. 37(b) — Due Process: Lawyers Had Notice Though Motion Only Mentioned Firm — Goodyear Requires But-For, Not Prox. Cause, Incl. Fees on Fees—Reconsideration (Good Quote)—Interest on SXS

KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160034 (N. ...
KCI USA, Inc. v. Healthcare Essentials, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160034 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2018): Pending before the Court are KCI's motion for attorney fees and costs (ECF No. 367) and individual Cavitch Attorneys Komlavi Atsou, Michael…
Continue Reading

Where Court-Ordered Arbitration Is Terminated Pursuant to Arb. Body’s Rules for Non-Payment of Arb. Fees by Party That Lacks Funds to Pay Them, Arb. Has “Been Had” Per FAA §3 and Stay Should Be Lifted So Case May Proceed in Court — No Sanctions

Tillman v. Tillman, 825 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 2016): When two parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the Federal Arbitration Act requires federal courts to stay lawsuit ...
Tillman v. Tillman, 825 F.3d 1069 (1st Cir. 2016): When two parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement, the Federal Arbitration Act requires federal courts to stay lawsuits between them until the arbitration is resolved and then to …
Continue Reading

Assertion of Attorney-Client Privilege at Depositions of Lawyer and Client Bars Subsequent Attempt to Assert Advice of Counsel Defense Absent Making Deponents Available, or Deposing Them, in Timely Fashion — Sword/Shield Quote

Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, 889 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018): Appellants Heat On-The-Fly, LLC and Super Heaters North Dakota, LLC (together, "HOTF")
Energy Heating, LLC v. Heat On-The-Fly, LLC, 889 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018): Appellants Heat On-The-Fly, LLC and Super Heaters North Dakota, LLC (together, "HOTF")1 appeal the district court's judgment of inequitable conduct, summary judgment of obviousness, denial…
Continue Reading

Jury Trial Waiver: Which Party Bears Burden of Proving Knowingness & Voluntariness of Waiver? — Circuit Split

Servicios Comerciales Lamosa, S.A. v. De La Rosa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148905 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018): Before [*2]  the court are Plaintiff Revestimientos Porcelan ...
Servicios Comerciales Lamosa, S.A. v. De La Rosa, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148905 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2018): Before [*2]  the court are Plaintiff Revestimientos Porcelanite, S.A. de C.V.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 90), filed April 17, 2018;…
Continue Reading

Sanctions for State Court Misconduct in Removed Case: Rule 11 Irrelevant, Whether / If Federal Court Should Apply State Sanctions Rules Is Matter of Dispute — Order to Show Cause Issued As to Why Inherent Power Sanctions Should Not Issue

Wronko v. Martin, 2018 WL 4562462 (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2018): INTRODUCTION *1 This matter comes before the Court upon three Motions for Rule 11 Sanctions. (ECF Nos. 70, 72, 73.) These Motions are brought by Defendants Michael Baltazar, Borough of Helmetta, Devon Gannon, Helmetta Police Dep ...
Wronko v. Martin, 2018 WL 4562462 (D.N.J. Sept. 24, 2018): INTRODUCTION *1 This matter comes before the Court upon three Motions for Rule 11 Sanctions. (ECF Nos. 70, 72, 73.) These Motions are brought by Defendants Michael Baltazar, Borough of…
Continue Reading

Fourfold Purposes of Rule 37 Sanctions / Single Purpose of § 1927 Sanctions — Depositions: Objection “You Can Answer If You Know” or “Understand” Is Always Improper — Conduct Not OK in Courtroom Not OK at Deposition (Good Quotes)

Hunter v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4352823 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018): ORDER AND REASONS *1 Before the Court are two related motions, the “Motion for an Order for Sanctions, Attorney Fees, Perjury, and to Reschedule the Depositions and Conduct Them in Chambers” and the “Motion f ...
Hunter v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 2018 WL 4352823 (E.D. La. Sept. 12, 2018): ORDER AND REASONS *1 Before the Court are two related motions, the “Motion for an Order for Sanctions, Attorney Fees, Perjury, and to Reschedule the Depositions…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Government Website Contents Are Self-Authenticating

Bingham v. Barnhart, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106170 (E.D. Ky. June 26, 2018): Petitioner Randall Dale Bingham has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 ...
Bingham v. Barnhart, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106170 (E.D. Ky. June 26, 2018): Petitioner Randall Dale Bingham has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [R. 1.] At the…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions: Dismissal Is a “Last Resort” But Is Appropriate If Noncompliance Is Due to Willful or Bad Faith Disregard for Discovery Orders (Good Quote)

Taylor v. Bradshaw, 2018 WL 3414344 (11th Cir. July 13, 2018): PER CURIAM: Charlotte Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendants following a jury trial on her claims under
Taylor v. Bradshaw, 2018 WL 3414344 (11th Cir. July 13, 2018): PER CURIAM: Charlotte Taylor, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of defendants following a jury trial on her claims under 42 U.S.C. …
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Information on Government Websites Is Self-Authenticating under Rule 902(5) and Admissible under Rule 803(8) (Public Records Exception)

Rychorcewicz v. Welltec, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123512 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2018) (Report and Recommendation): Pending before the court1
Rychorcewicz v. Welltec, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123512 (S.D. Tex. June 22, 2018) (Report and Recommendation): Pending before the court1 is Defendant Welltec, Inc.'s ("Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 89) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike (Doc.…
Continue Reading

Appeals: Untimely Rule 59(e) Motion = 60(b) Motion & Appeal Is from Denial of That — Removal: While Remand Orders Are Usually Unappealable, They Are for Removal under § 1443, Allowing Removal Where Constitutional Rights Can’t Be Enforced in State Ct

Sanders v. Wright, 2018 WL 3933773 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* *1 Rockey D. Wright, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s denying his motion for relief following its remanding his child-custody action to state court ...
Sanders v. Wright, 2018 WL 3933773 (5th Cir. 2018) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* *1 Rockey D. Wright, proceeding pro se, challenges the district court’s denying his motion for relief following its remanding his child-custody action to state court after Wright…
Continue Reading
123

Recent Articles

United States Trinity Energy Servs., L.L.C. v. Se. Directional Drilling, L.L.C., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 10178 (5th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025): FRAP 38 Separate Motion Requirement FRAP 38 Sanctions Properly Denied for Want of Separate Motion — Request in Brief Insufficient — “Manifest Disregard” Is Not A Freestanding Ground for Vacatur of Arbitration Award in Fifth Circuit (Or First, Eighth Or Eleventh)

§ 1927 Sanctions Apt for Failing to Withdraw Claim Until Summary Judgment Hearing, Requiring Opponent and Court to Prepare for An Abandoned Argument — Bad Faith Established by False and Misleading Statements to Court — Raising New Argument for First Time in Reply Brief Does Not Warrant § 1927 Sanctions

RICO: Mail and Wire Fraud: Act of Emailing Transcript of Court Proceedings Containing Allegedly False Statements Made in Court ≠ Wire Fraud — Mailing (Serving on Opposing Party) Declarations Allegedly Containing False Statements ≠ Mail Fraud

Supreme Court: (1) Rule 11 Sanctions Available Where Affirmative Defense “Obviously Applies” and Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s Counsel “Lack A Good Faith Basis to Believe Otherwise” — (2) If Affirmative Defense Pled, Court May Require Plaintiff to File a Reply to the Answer Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a) Setting forth “Specific, Nonconclusory Factual Allegations” Showing That The Affirmative Defense Does Not Apply — (3) The Title of a Statute And The Heading of a Section May Properly Be Used to Interpret the Text

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Declines to Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions Unless An Improper Purpose Was Behind the Appeal

FRAP 38: Permissible for Appeals Court to Affirm Sanctions But Deny FRAP 38 Sanctions for Appeal — A Defendant’s Voluntary Cessation of Complained of Behavior Does Not Moot a Case Unless It Is Clear That The Behavior Could Not Reasonably Be Expected to Recur

Rule 11: Violation of 21 Day Safe Harbor “Overlook[ed]” As Non-Prejudicial by First Circuit — “Rule 11 Monetary Sanctions Must Be Reasonable” (Good Quote) — Rule 11(c)(4) Requires Consideration of Offender’s Ability to Pay

Temporary Restraining Order = Preliminary Injunction: 3 Supreme Court Cases (TRO=PI x 3)

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Eighth Circuit’s 4-Factor Test

RICO: So Insubstantial A Claim As to Fail to Confer Subject Matter Jurisdiction

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

© 2025 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice