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

Joseph Hage Aaronson

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Exclusion of Damages Evidence for Willful Failure to Include Computation in 26(a)(1) Disclosure OK Where Lesser Sanctions No Longer Available — Appeals: Failure to Brief Issue ID’ed in Brief as Presented for Review Waives It

Silver State Broad., LLC v. Bergner, 2017 WL 6047537 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2017): *1 Plaintiffs Silver State Broadcasting, LLC, Royce International Broadcasting Corporation, and Golden State Broadcasting, LLC (collectively, “the Broadcasters”) appeal from the district court’s order granting summary…
Continue Reading

Electronic Hearsay: Fact Business Keeps and Receives Emails Doesn’t Make Them Business Records (Good Quote) — 803(6) Elements Must Be Satisfied — Business Records Exception Is Predicated on Accuracy & Reliability; Email Is Typically More Casual

United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2013): Donald Cone and Chun-Yu Zhao were convicted of various charges under an indictment arising out of a scheme to import and resell counterfeit pieces of computer networking equipment, some of …
Continue Reading

Rule 37 & 41 Sanctions — Reversible Error to Dismiss without Considering Lesser Sanctions — 6th Circuit Leaves Open Possibility Dismissal Might Be OK for Discovery Delay Absent Violation of Court Order in Extreme Circumstances

Dominguez v. Crosby Tugs, LLC, 2017 WL 3271117 (5th Cir. Aug. 1, 2017): Jorge Dominguez, Jr., a Jones Act seaman employed by Crosby Tugs (“Crosby”), was allegedly injured when he was directed to manually move a marine fire extinguisher. Dominguez …
Continue Reading

Texts – Admissibility: Recipient May Testify As to Contents of Lost Text Per Rule 1004 Consistently with Best Evidence Rule — “We Will Not Reverse the Trial Court When It Reached the Right Result Albeit for the Wrong Reason” (Good Quote)

People v Washington, 2017 Mich. App. LEXIS 1774 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2017): A jury convicted defendant of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (victim under 13/defendant 17 or older) (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b); assault with intent to…
Continue Reading

RICO: 171 Pp. of Vague Allegations, Each Count Adopting Prior ¶¶=Shotgun Pleading, Violates Rule 8—Abstention: Younger Applies to Civil Case Only If St. Court’s Ability to Perform Judicial Fxs Involved—Colorado River Very Rare

Barone v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18396 (11th Cir. Sept. 21, 2017): John M. Barone, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging various wrongful acts by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells …
Continue Reading

Rule 16: What Constitutes “Good Cause” to Amend Scheduling Order to Allow Late Designation of Expert — Five Factors (6th Cir.), Diligence Key — Appeals: Waiver of Argument by Not Raising It Below — Plain-Miscarriage-of-Justice Exception

Gatza v. DCC Litig. Facility, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21861 (6th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017): Plaintiffs-Appellants Kathy Gatza and Pamela Sutherland (together, "Plaintiffs") appeal the district court's denial of their motions to amend the scheduling orders in their cases.…
Continue Reading

Hearsay: Importance of Specificity to 803(3) (State of Mind) Foundation — Settlement Negotiations: Rule 408 Doesn’t Bar Evidence Party Acknowledged a Fact at Settlement Meeting That It Now Denies

Fabick, Inc. v. Fabco Equip., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198963 (wdwis Dec. 4, 2017): This case is set for a jury trial commencing, December 11, 2017, to resolve plaintiff Fabick, Inc.'s remaining claims of trademark infringement against defendants…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions Don’t Require Bad Faith But 6th Cir. Only Imposes If Improper Purpose — §1927 Sanctions Don’t Require Bad Faith in 6th Cir., But Still > Negligence: Intentional Abuse of Judicial Process/Knowing Disregard of Multiplicitousness

Raub v. Moon Lake Prop Owners’ Ass’n, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22933 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2017): Plaintiffs David and William Raub appeal the dismissal of their action asserting various civil rights and disability discrimination claims arising from their ownership…
Continue Reading
Previous118119120121122123124Next

Recent Articles

Rule 37(d) Sanctions — For Failure to Serve Answers, Objections, Or Written Response to Discovery Requests — Are Not Limited to Intentional Misconduct; Even Innocent Mistakes May Be Covered

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11 Does Not Apply to Litigation Papers Initially Filed in State Court — Only Reaffirmance in Federal Court Post-Removal Is Subject to Sanction — (2) “The Fact That A Legal Theory Is A Long-Shot Does Not Necessarily Mean It Is Sanctionable” (Good Quote)

Supreme Court: Relief under Rule 60(b)(6) Requires Extraordinary Circumstances Even If It Is Invoked to Allow Amendment of The Complaint–Rule 15’s Liberal Approach to Amendment Does Not Change That (Reversing Second Circuit)

FRAP 38 Sanctions — Eleventh Circuit Generally Does Not Impose FRAP 38 Sanctions on Pro Se Litigants, But May Do So If They Have Persisted Despite Judicial Warnings of Frivolousness

Inherent Power Sanctions: No Dismissal with Prejudice If Lesser Sanctions Will Suffice — The Liberal Pleading Standard of Swierkiewicz “Is Still Good Law”

Supreme Court: (1) Fraudulent Inducement Theory of Mail Fraud: Statute Violated If Victim Is Tricked into Parting with Money Or Property, Even If Victim Suffers No Pecuniary Loss — (2) “A Fraud Is Complete When The Defendant Has Induced The Deprivation Of Money Or Property Under Materially False Pretenses” — (3) The Old Soil Principle of Statutory Construction Applies Only to the Extent That a Common-Law Term Has Accumulated a Settled Meaning — (4) Rescission for Fraud Does Not Require Economic Loss; Sufficient If Property of A Different Character Or Condition Provided — i.e, If Victim Tricked into A Bargain Materially Different from The One Promised — (5) “At The Right Level Of Specificity, Anything Can Be Described As ‘Unique’ Or ‘Different From’ Something Else” (Good Quote) — (6) “Materiality Look[s] To The Effect On The Likely Or Actual Behavior Of The Recipient Of The Alleged Misrepresentation” (Good Quote)

Statements in Briefs As Judicial Admissions

Supreme Court: TRO As Appealable Order — And District Court Inaction As Tantamount to Refusing An Injunction And Thus Appealable

“Slow-Playing Discovery” in Response to Court Order, Prejudicing Opponent, Violates Rule 37(b)(2)(A)

RICO Pattern: No Closed-Ended Continuity If Racketeering Activity Lasted Less Than One Year (11th Circuit) — Conspiracy Allegations Governed by Rule 8(a), Not 9(b) — Two Paths to Establishing A RICO Conspiracy: Agreement to Objective Or to Commit 2 Predicate Acts — Plaintiff Need Not Show Reliance When The Predicate Acts Are Wire Fraud — In Dicta, 11th Circuit Intimates That Even If The Primary RICO Violation Allegations Fail, The RICO Conspiracy Allegations Might Survive, But Is Probably Talking About A Conspiracy to Commit The Predicate Acts

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