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

Res Judicata / Collateral Estoppel: Claims within Exclusive Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Generally Not Barred by Prior State Court Case Arising Out of Common Nucleus of Operative Fact — FRAP 38: Partial Success on Appeal Avoids Sanctions

Veit v. Frater, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22220 (7th Cir. Oct. 31, 2017):   ORDER Jackson Veit sued Angela Frater and "New Company" asserting that they conspired to defraud him of the value of securities that he held in InfoCorp, LLC.…
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Violation of Rule or Regulation Pertaining to Document Retention Is Not Per Se Bad Faith [Note: The Regulation at Issue Was Not Adopted for the Benefit of the Party/Class Claiming Spoliation]

Eaton-Stephens v. Grapevine Colleyville Indep. Sch. Dist., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22704 (5th Cir. Nov. 13, 2017) (unpublished): This appeal arises from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Grapevine Colleyville Independent School District on all of…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions — Recklessness without More Insufficient — Uncertainty Reflected in Circuit’s Model Jury Instructions & Fact Another Circuit Accepted Argument Means It Isn’t Frivolous—Opposing Motion to Strike Claim w/o Basis Sanctionable

Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16632 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2017): This appeal, set in the high-stakes world of furniture sales, runs the gamut of trademark infringement issues. The facts are somewhat unusual:…
Continue Reading

RICO: In Determining Whether Pattern Stated against a Defendant, Court Considers Only Alleged Offenses That Defendant Was Involved in — Continuity: Relevant Period Is When Predicates Occurred, Not Duration of Scheme

Sterling Nat’l Mortg. Co. v. Infinite Title Solutions, LLC, 2011 WL 13220625 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2011): REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS *1 THIS MATTER is before the Court concerning motions to dismiss filed by Defendants Infinite Title…
Continue Reading

Appeals Court Has Jurisdiction over Denial of Motion to Intervene If Is As of Right — Disqualification: Court May Look Through Generality of “Substantially Related” If It Has Specific Evidence Proving No Confidential Info of Former Client Used

Kirsch v. Dean, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21257 (6th Cir. Oc.t 25, 2017): Defendant Robert Dean and Proposed Intervenor ZFX, Inc. jointly appeal: (1) a December 7, 2016 order denying Dean's motion to disqualify Middleton Reutlinger, the law firm representing …
Continue Reading

Sanctions: Motion for Reconsideration of Rule 11 Sanctions Not Punishable under § 1927 without Specific Finding of Conduct Tantamount to Bad Faith — Is Recklessness-Plus (9th Cir. § 1927 Standard) a Species of Bad Faith or Something Else?

Wavetronix, LLC v. Myers, 2017 WL 5643189 (9th Cir. Nov. 24, 2017): Blake S. Atkin, attorney for Wavetronix, LLC, (“Wavetronix”) appeals the district court’s orders sanctioning him pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (Rule 11),1 and…
Continue Reading

Rule 16(f) & Inherent Power Sanctions: Modest $5,000 Punitive Fine OK as Minimum Needed to Punish Disregard of Court Orders — Willful Disregard Is Tantamount to Bad Faith Whether Due to “Incompetence or Impertinence” (Goodyear Unmentioned)

Yaffa v. Weidner, 2017 WL 5593501 (11th Cir. Nov. 21, 2017): Deanna L. Weidner, an attorney representing the defendant and counter-claimant SunSouth Bank (“SunSouth”) in this action, appeals from a sanctions order that imposed a “fine” of $5,000 on Weidner…
Continue Reading

Unreasonable Delay May Render Rule 37(c) Sanctions Motion Untimely — Meritlessness as Substantial Justification for Not Making 26(a)(1) Disclosures — Post-Judgment Motion to Amend Deemed a 60(b) Motion, Must Be Filed within a Year of Entry of Judgment

Bush v. Dept. of Human Servs., 2017 WL 5125624 (3d Cir. Nov. 6, 2017): *1 Gerald Bush appeals the District Court’s order denying three motions he filed after the dismissal of his fourth amended complaint—a “Complaint and Law,” which the…
Continue Reading
Previous119120121122123124125Next

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