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

Greg Joseph

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 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 …
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 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): 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

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

Key v. Qualcomm Inc, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4311 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2025) (unpublished): Plaintiffs sued Qualcomm Inc., tracking the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) theories that Qualcomm’s business practices violated state and federal antitrust law. These business practices include …
Continue Reading

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

FX Aviation Cap. LLC v. Guerrero, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3656 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025) (unpublished): This appeal stems from a long-standing dispute between Plaintiff-Appellant FX Aviation Capital, LLC (“FX”) and several former business partners——LG Aviation, Inc., Mark Liker,…
Continue Reading

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

Claims v. Lundbeck LLC, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 4489 (4th Cir. Feb. 26, 2025): Plaintiffs [*2]  are business entities that allegedly own recovery rights assigned to them by health insurers and other third-party Medicare payors (“Assignors”). Assignors reimbursed their enrollees…
Continue Reading

(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

Hartman v. Does, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2477, 2025 WL 398846 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2025) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Defendants-Appellants appeal from the district court’s denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law1 and…
Continue Reading

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

Sec’y United States DOL v. Nursing Home Care Mgmt., 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2219 (3d Cir. Jan. 31, 2025): Nursing Home Care Management Inc. (“Prestige”) operates a home healthcare service. It did not compensate its employees for time spent…
Continue Reading
Previous123456Next

Recent Articles

Inherent Power Sanctions for Bad Faith in (1) Misrepresenting Patent Ownership in Amended Complaint and (2) Failing to Supplement Discovery Responses to Rectify This after the Discovery Period Had Closed, Both of Which Led to Continued Litigation After One Plaintiff Had Lost Standing — The Duty To Supplement Discovery Responses under Rule 26(e) Continues Even After The Discovery Period Has Closed — Use of Inherent Power to Sanction Violation of Local Rules That Lack Sanctions Provisions (Sanction Reversed on Other Grounds)

Paul Weiss Did The Right Thing

RICO: Unsettled Whether Legal Expenses Constitute Injury to Business or Property in Ninth Circuit — Leave to Amend Must Be Granted Unless 1 or More of 5 Factors Is Present — Request for Judicial Notice of Wikipedia Articles Fails to Satisfy The Standards Fed. R. Evid. 201

FRAP 38 Sanctions Denied Without Prejudice for Lack of Separate Motion

Rule 26(g)(3) Sanctions Are Mandatory If Certification Violated — No Bad Faith Required — No Premotion Duty to Confer under Rule 26(g) [Beware of Local Rules] — Rule 26(g)(3) Attorney’s Fee Award for Unreasonable Investigation Before Serving Unreasonable Responses to Document Requests — Abuse of Discretion Review

“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)

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