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 18, 2025

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

United States v. Whigham, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24014 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024): *** Whigham complains that Ganguli refused to file the brief that Whigham himself drafted. But that's not a good cause for substituting Ganguli.< ...
United States v. Whigham, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24014 (6th Cir. Sept. 19, 2024): *** Whigham complains that Ganguli refused to file the brief that Whigham himself drafted. But that’s not a good cause for substituting Ganguli. [*4]  Quite…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Allison El v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24068 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished): Our decision in this appeal, issued on August 29, 2024, ordered Allison to show cause why the court should not impose a penalty under Federal Rule ...
Allison El v. United States, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24068 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024) (unpublished): Our decision in this appeal, issued on August 29, 2024, ordered Allison to show cause why the court should not impose a penalty under…
Continue Reading

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

Vartan HK Int'l Funds Invs. USA Ltd., LLC v. Paul Hastings LLP (In re Kwok), 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5726 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the judgment of the ...
Vartan HK Int’l Funds Invs. USA Ltd., LLC v. Paul Hastings LLP (In re Kwok), 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5726 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, the judgment of the District Court entered on…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Second Circuit Generally Requires “Blatant Frivolity, Bad Faith, or Repetitive Filings” Before It Will Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions

Jae Shin v. Party Well Rest. & Oriental Bakery, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5728 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
Jae Shin v. Party Well Rest. & Oriental Bakery, Inc., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5728 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2025) (unpublished): SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the March 28, 2024 judgment of…
Continue Reading

“The Meaning Of Language Lies In How An Audience Understands [The] Words” (Good Quote)

Quality Custom Distrib. Servs. LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. 710, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5971, *4 (7th Cir. March 14, 2025):  “You do not need to be a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein to know that the meaning of language lies in how an audience understands words. See Saul A. Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (1982).” ...
Quality Custom Distrib. Servs. LLC v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Loc. 710, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5971, *4 (7th Cir. March 14, 2025):  “You do not need to be a student of Ludwig Wittgenstein to know that the meaning of…
Continue Reading

Recent Articles

“Parties Represented by Counsel May Not File Pro Se Briefs” (Good Quote)

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Until Paid, Filing Bar Imposed in All Federal Courts in The Circuit

Rule 37 Sanctions — Contempt for Ignoring Orders Compelling Discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii) — Contempt Factors (Second Circuit) — Sanctions Mandatory Unless Failure to Comply Substantially Justified or Award Would Be Unjust — No Due Process Violation Even Though Target Not Given An Opportunity to Be Heard Before Sanctions Granted Where (1) Target Knew Court Invited Fee Application, (2) Target Had 11 Days to Object or Respond Before Fees Issued, and (3) Court Thoroughly Considered Motion to Reconsider

FRAP 38 Sanctions: Second Circuit Generally Requires “Blatant Frivolity, Bad Faith, or Repetitive Filings” Before It Will Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions

“The Meaning Of Language Lies In How An Audience Understands [The] Words” (Good Quote)

Rule 11 Sanctions — Successful Dershowitz Appeal in Election Case — (1) Ninth Circuit Splits with Sixth Holding (2-1) All Signers of a Court Paper Are Liable for Everything in It, Even If They Can Prove They Had No Role in the Sanctionable Portions (Ed. Ques.: (i) How Did They “Violate[] The Rule” (Rule 11(c)(2))? (ii) Why Does Reasonableness Require Every Lawyer to Read Every Allegation? (iii) Why Can’t They Or Their Clients Allocate Work? (iv) How Are Limited-Role, Innocent Lawyers “Responsible for the Violation” (Rule 11(c)(2))?)) — (2) Goodyear v. Haeger Doesn’t Allow Innocent Lawyers to Prove They Did Not Cause Any Damages (Ed.: Majority Conflates Basis for Seeking Fees with Defense to Fees) — (3) From Concurrence: Duties of Local Counsel (n. 3)

Rule 11 and § 1927 Sanctions — Jurisdiction to Sanction Survives Demise of Case — Rule 11 Sanctions Require Both a Baseless Pleading And an Unreasonable Inquiry (The Latter of Which May Be Inferable from the Former) — Amount of Time Available Affects Analysis of What Investigation Is Reasonable — Meaning of “Bad Faith” for § 1927 Sanctions in Ninth Circuit

Today Is The 24th Anniversary Of The Firm

RICO Person vs. Enterprise: Subsidiary in Typical Corporate Structure Does Not Control Parent And Therefore Does Not Conduct Parent’s Affairs

Patently Frivolous RICO Complaint Fails to Confer Federal Question Jurisdiction — Subject to Rule 12(b)(1) for Lack of 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