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

Discovery Sanction: Evasive or Incomplete Interrogatory Answer = No Answer — While Striking Claim Is Extreme, More Demanding Standard Applied in Civil Forfeiture Actions to Special Interrogatories on Standing

United States v. 284,950.00 in United States Currency, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23947 (8th Cir. Aug. 12, 2019): Nikkolas Thompson appeals the district court's1 judgment in favor of the United States in this civil forfeiture action. We affirm. In …
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Adverse Inference Requires Actual Suppression or Withholding — Inapt If Evidence “Lost or Accidentally Destroyed” or Failure “Is Otherwise Properly Accounted for” (Good Quotes)

Layden v. Target Corp, 768 Fed. Appx. 152 (3d Cir. April 17, 2019): Donna Layden slipped and fell in Target and filed suit for negligence. The District Court granted summary judgment to Target after discovery, concluding that Layden failed to…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Dismissal for Disregard of Order Not Abuse of Discretion Where Litigant Forewarned — Nor Is Dismissal without Prejudice — Meaning of Abuse of Discretion (11th Circuit)

Frank v. Schulson, 2019 WL 3545891 (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2019) (unpublished): *1 Kenneth Frank, a Florida state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his civil rights complaint, in which he alleged claims…
Continue Reading

Offensive (Nonmutual) Collateral Estoppel: 4 Factors — Identicality = Same Issues, Not Claims — Necessity Met If Finding Essential to Remedy, Even If Not Jmt — Legal Issues Reviewed De Novo, Fairness for Abuse of Discretion

Bifolck v. Philip Morris United States, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25023 (2d Cir. Aug. 22, 2019): Vincent Bifolck, individually and as executor of the estate of his deceased wife Jeanette Bifolck, appeals from a judgment of the United States District…
Continue Reading

RICO: Whether a Pattern Exists (Predicates + Relationship + Threat of Continuing Activity) Is a Jury Question — Mailing Need Only Be Incident to Fraud, Not Fraudulent — Limited Scope of 9(b) Particularity

Sorensen v. Polukoff, 2019 WL 3819629 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2019) (Unpublished): 1 Sherman Sorensen, M.D., appeals the dismissal of his claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962. The district …
Continue Reading

Appeals: In Bankruptcy Appeal, Circuit Sits As Second Court of Review & Independently Examines Factual & Legal Determinations of Bankruptcy Court, Using Same Standards As District Court

In re Crawford, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24570 (11th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: Brett Elam appeals portions of the bankruptcy court's order sanctioning him for misconduct in the Chapter 11 proceeding below. As debtor's counsel, Elam sought …
Continue Reading

Rule 45 (Or Inherent Power) Sanctions: Fees for Trial Subpoena End Run Around Discovery Deadline — Sub Has Standing to Move to Quash for Parent — Due Process: Rule 45 Puts Counsel on Notice of Its Terms — FRAP 38 Fees for Post-Hoc Rationalizations

Progresive Emu Inc. v. Nutrition & Fitness Inc., 2019 WL 3798494 (11th Cir. Aug. 13, 2019) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:   *1 This appeal arises from a breach-of-contract dispute between Plaintiff Progressive Emu Inc.,1 a producer and supplier of emu oil,…
Continue Reading

Experts — Legal Malpractice Expert Who Describes Only How S/he Does Same Task for Same Client Fails to Establish What Defendant Should Have Done — Opinion Properly Excluded under 37(c)(1) as Overly Broad, Subjective, Non-Compliant with 26(a)

EQT Prod. Co. v. Phillips, 767 Fed. Appx. 626 (6th Cir. Mar. 29, 2019): This legal malpractice case arises from title opinions that attorney Dale Phillips ("Phillips") provided to EQT Production Company ("EQT") regarding EQT's rights and ownership in certain …
Continue Reading
Previous57585960616263Next

Recent Articles

RICO Statute of Limitations — Storm Warnings, Not Thunder and Lightning (Good Quote)

Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions: Ninth Circuit’s Five-Factor Test for Gauging Appropriateness of Dismissal — The Limited Utility of Rule 12(f) Motions to Strike

RICO: Employer Suffered Harm to Business or Property When Kickbacks Paid to Employees in Real Estate Transactions Done for Employer — Expert Testimony Sufficient to Prove Harm — Proof That Employer Paid Above-Market Prices Not Essential — Non-Disclosure of Certain Damages in Initial Disclosures Cured by Expert Report, Which Also Rendered Initial Non-Disclosure Harmless

Spoliation: Dismissal Under Rule 37(e)(2) and Monetary Sanctions Under Rule 37(e)(1), Implicitly Reading The “Or” Between 37(e)(1) and 37(e)(2) As Conjunctive, Not Disjunctive — Clear Error Standard of Review for District Court’s Intent (= Bad Faith) Finding under 37(e)(2)(C) — Additional Monetary Sanctions Imposed on Claimants under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 and Rule 37(a)(5) — No Right to Jury Determination of Intent under Rule 37(e)(2) — “Substantially Justified” in Rule 37(a)(5) Has Same Meaning As In Equal Access to Justice Act and Thus Rule 11 — Meaning of “Unreasonable and Vexatious” in 7th Circuit

Inherent Power Sanction of Dismissal — Preponderance of the Evidence Burden of Proof, Not Clear and Convincing Evidence (7th Circuit)

§ 1927 Sanctions — Must A Lawyer Who Unreasonably and Vexatiously Multiplies Federal Court Proceedings Be Acting “As An Attorney” When Committing the Misconduct To Be Subject to Sanction under § 1927?

Rule 37 Sanctions — Unfamiliarity With Litigation Process Does Not Excuse Intentional Disregard of Court Order — Also Affirming Rule 26(g) Sanctions on Clients and Counsel for False Representations That All Responsive Documents Had Been Produced

Supreme Court: Notice of Appeal Filed After The Original Deadline But Before Reopening by The District Court Is Timely — It Relates Forward to The Date of The Order Making The Appeal Possible — Second Notice of Appeal After Reopening Unnecessary

Rule 37 Default Judgment: Second Circuit’s Four-Factor Test for Imposing Defaults and Three-Factor Test for Lifting Them

Rule 37 Default Judgment — Tenth Circuit Multifactor Test Is Not Exhaustive But a Non-Exclusive List of “Sometimes-Helpful Criteria Or Guide Posts”— Appeal from Preliminary Injunction Mooted by Entry of Permanent Injunction — Difficulty in Collecting Damages Award May Equal Irreparable Injury — A Monetary Award For Past Conduct Does Not Preclude A Permanent Injunction Against Similar Wrongful Conduct Likely To Occur In The Future

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

© 2026 Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC  
Disclaimer | Attorney Advertising Notice | Legal Notice