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

Text Admissibility: Court May Place Reasonable Limitations on the Presentation of Cumulative Text Evidence, Limiting Counsel to Counsel’s Choice of 10 Best Messages for Impeachment Where Use of All Would Have Been Time Consuming, Inflammatory

People v. Adekunle Olobayo Aisony, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6051 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018): In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, defendant ...
People v. Adekunle Olobayo Aisony, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6051 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2018): In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, defendant and appellant Adekunle Olobayo-Aisony was charged with criminal threats…
Continue Reading

Rule 11(b)(2) Sanctions: Relitigating in Rule 60(b) Motion Same Issues Previously Lost Is Legally Indefensible, As Is Arguing Merits when Default Judgment Was Entered

M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc., 2018 WL 4191098 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Richard C. King, Jr., Mary Ellen King, and the King Law Group, PLLC, appeal an imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(b)(2) in the amount of $39,325.63. We affirm. I. This appeal is part of a series of ...
M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc., 2018 WL 4191098 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Richard C. King, Jr., Mary Ellen King, and the King Law Group, PLLC, appeal an imposition of sanctions under Rule 11(b)(2) in the…
Continue Reading

YouTube Admissibility: Still Photos from Music Video Showing Defendant Holding Apparently Same Gun He Is Charged with Possessing Not Unduly Prejudicial under 403, Not Offered for Propensity in Violation of 404(b)

United States v. Washington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148887 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018): This matter is before the Court on Defendant Darrius Washington's motion [110] for a new trial pursuant to
United States v. Washington, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148887 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2018): This matter is before the Court on Defendant Darrius Washington's motion [110] for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions & Arbitration: Court May Not Enter Default Judgment against Party That Moved to Compel Arb. & Then Refused to Pay Arb. Fees without Inquiring as to Ability to Pay — But, If Party Was Able to Pay Yet Refused, Default May Be Apt

Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22068, 2018 WL 3761126 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2018): This case asks us to consider whether a District Court can properly enter a default judgment b ...
Hernandez v. Acosta Tractors, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22068, 2018 WL 3761126 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2018): This case asks us to consider whether a District Court can properly enter a default judgment based on a party's failure …
Continue Reading

Plaintiff Has Right to Withdraw Rule 41(a)(2) Motion to Dismiss If It Does Not Wish to Acquiesce to Terms Set by Court for Granting the Motion — Open Question: Are Some Conditions So Minimal There Are Exceptions to This Rule?

Paysys Int'l, Inc. v. Atos IT Servs. Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23067, 2018 WL 3965723 (2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2018): Plaintiff-appellant Paysys International [*2]  ("Paysy ...
Paysys Int'l, Inc. v. Atos IT Servs. Ltd., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23067, 2018 WL 3965723 (2d Cir. Aug. 20, 2018): Plaintiff-appellant Paysys International [*2]  ("Paysys") moved to voluntarily dismiss its case with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) …
Continue Reading

Removal: Forum Defendant May Remove at Any Time Before S/he Is “Properly Joined and Served” within § 1441(b)(2) (3d Circuit) — Matter of First Impression in Courts of Appeals

Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23576 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2018): This appeal, which presents issues of statutory interpretation, stems from a tragic ...
Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23576 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2018): This appeal, which presents issues of statutory interpretation, stems from a tragic automobile crash that killed the intoxicated driver and seriously…
Continue Reading

RICO: No Proximate Cause Alleged by Retailers Claiming Lost Sales Due to Smuggling — Decision Not to Buy ≠ Predicate Act — Intention, Foreseeability Irrelevant (Good Quotes) — Wire Fraud: 3 Factors

Empire Merchs., LLC v. Reliable Churchill LLLP, 902 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2018); This is a case about proximate cause under the
Empire Merchs., LLC v. Reliable Churchill LLLP, 902 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2018); This is a case about proximate cause under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Plaintiff-Appellant Empire …
Continue Reading

Arbitration: Court Uses Look-Through (Not Well-Pleaded Complaint) Approach to Decide Federal Question Jurisdiction over Motion to Compel — Circuit Split as to Whether That Approach Applies to Petition to Confirm, Vacate or Modify

HealthSpring Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Tex. Health Mgmt. LLC,  , ,8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105467, 2018 WL 3105655 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2018): Pending before the Court is Plaintiff HealthSpring Life ...
HealthSpring Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Tex. Health Mgmt. LLC,  , ,8 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105467, 2018 WL 3105655 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2018): Pending before the Court is Plaintiff HealthSpring Life & Health Insurance Company, Inc.'s ("HealthSpring")…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(e) Sanctions: Adverse Inference Instruction Requires Intentional Spoliation — Negligence Not Enough

Auer v. City of Minot, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19945 (8th Cir. July 19, 2018): This is the second of what will be at least three decisions from this court arising out of Colleen Auer's one-mo ...
Auer v. City of Minot, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19945 (8th Cir. July 19, 2018): This is the second of what will be at least three decisions from this court arising out of Colleen Auer's one-month stint as city…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions Appropriate for Repeated Filing of Same Meritless Claim — Vexatious Litigant Injunctions: Factors (Second Circuit)

Ferguson v. Comm’r of Tax & Fin., 2018 WL 3098870 (2d Cir. June 25, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Appellant Jeremiah Ferguson, proceeding pro se, appeals from a May 15, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Siragusa, J.). Ferguson sued the New York State ...
Ferguson v. Comm’r of Tax & Fin., 2018 WL 3098870 (2d Cir. June 25, 2018) (unpublished): *1 Appellant Jeremiah Ferguson, proceeding pro se, appeals from a May 15, 2017 judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District…
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