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

March 5, 2025

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Sec'y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 128 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent traveling between cl ...
Sec’y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 128 F.4th 146 (3d Cir. 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent traveling between clients’ homes. …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Lackey v. Stinnie, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 866, 2025 WL 594737 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025): Respondents are Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended due to their failure to pay court fines or costs. The drivers sued the Commissioner of the Virginia ...
Lackey v. Stinnie, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 866, 2025 WL 594737 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2025): Respondents are Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended due to their failure to pay court fines or costs. The drivers sued the Commissioner of the …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 365, 2025 WL 96212 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025): If a complaint filed in state court asserts federal-law claims, the defendant may remove the case to federal court. See
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 365, 2025 WL 96212 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2025): If a complaint filed in state court asserts federal-law claims, the defendant may remove the case to federal court. See 28 U. …
Continue Reading

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 868 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2025):
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc., 2025 U.S. LEXIS 868 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2025): Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” to “relieve a party … from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.”…
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

Rule 37 Sanctions Properly Denied for Failure to Produce Documents That Were Already in the Requester’s Possession And Were Not Relevant to The Principal Issue in the Lawsuit — Experts/Daubert: Exclusion Appropriate Where Opinion Was Predicated on Erroneous Assumptions of Law

Supreme Court: Obtaining a Preliminary Injunction Does Not Render the Plaintiff a “Prevailing Party” Entitled to Attorney’s Fees — Must Win “Enduring Relief” On The Merits From A Judicial Order — Extraneous Events, Like Legislation, That Preserve The Outcome And Moot The Lawsuit Do Not Turn The Plaintiff into A Prevailing Party (Note, However, That A Defendant Need Not Obtain A Favorable Judgment On The Merits In Order To Be A “Prevailing Party”)

Supreme Court: When A Plaintiff Amends The Complaint To Delete The Federal-Law Claims That Enabled Removal To Federal Court, Leaving Only State-Law Claims, The Federal Court Loses Supplemental Jurisdiction, And The Case Must Be Remanded To State Court

Supreme Court: A Rule 41(a) Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice = A Final Proceeding Within Rule 60(b) — Advisory Committee Notes Are “A Reliable Source Of Insight Into The Meaning Of A Rule” — Prior to Dismissal or Entry of Judgment, A District Court May Always Rehear and Reconsider Prior Rulings

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions — Exclusion of Untimely Expert Report — Burden Is On Noncompliant Party to Prove Harmlessness — Court Need Not Hold Hearing If Noncompliant Party Fails to Argue Harmlessness, Even When Exclusion Is Tantamount to Dismissal

RICO: (1) Continuity: 4th Circuit Factors — (2) 4th Circuit Reserves RICO Liability for Unlawful Activities That Pose A Special Threat to Social Well-Being — (3) For Purposes of Determining Closed-Ended Continuity, Even Time-Barred Conduct Considered — (4) No Open-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Has Built-In Ending Point — (5) Unlike General Federal Conspiracy, RICO Conspiracy Doesn’t Require Each Defendant to Perform an Overt Act in Furtherance of the Conspiracy

Whether Party Waived Arbitration by Litigating Is a Question for the Court, Not the Arbitrator

RICO: (1) Assignability of RICO Claims Uncertain — (2) Declining to Decide Whether Indirect-Purchaser Rule Applies to RICO (Given the Directness Requirement, How Much Does It Matter?) — (3) Two Types of Directness of Injury in Proximate Cause Analysis — (4) Proximate Cause As a Court Not Jury Issue in the First Instance

(1) RICO Pattern: Open-Ended Continuity — The Vendetta Exception — Jury Could Reasonably Infer That Scheme Directed at One Person, With Goal of Destroying His Current and Future Business Prospects, Presented A Threat of Continued Racketeering Activity Extending Indefinitely into the Future — Lawsuit’s “Fortuitous Interruption” of Scheme ≠ Lack of Threat of Continuing Racketeering Activity — Acts of Concealment Used to Perpetuate Violations — Multiple Schemes Not Required — Jury Could Judge Defendant’s Credibility in Assessing Threat of Continuing Criminal Activity — (2) RICO Conspiracy — Two Methods of Proof: Agreement to Overall Objective Or to Commit Predicate Acts — Agreement Can Be Inferred from Conduct — Conspirator Needn’t Know All Details, Have Contact with Other Conspirators Or Participate in Every Stage

Experts: “Normally, Courts Are Loath to Outright Dismiss An Expert” (Good Quote) — Experts Are Unhelpful If They Misstate the Law [Note Premise That Testimony on Law Not Precluded Outright] — Rule 37 Sanctions Unwarranted for Unjustifiable Failure to Produce Relevant Document Already in Requester’s Possession

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