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(b)(2)(A) Sanctions for Altering Expert’s 26(a)(2)(B) Report — Without the Expert’s Knowledge or Approval — by Converting It from PDF to Word, Changing Headings and Other Formatting, and Omitting a Page of Relevant Text and Appendices, Even Though Expert Testified That The Overall Substance of the Report Was Unchanged — Rule 37(b)(2)(A) Sanctions May Be Reversed If Failure to Comply with Discovery Order Was Due to Misunderstanding or Inability to Comply

Weissman v. Cheokas, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 21339 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024): PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Donald Andersen served as counsel for Plaintiffs Mark Weissman and Weatherly Aviation Company, Inc. (collectively, Plaintiffs) in a suit against Defendant-Appellee Michael Cheokas seeking…
Continue Reading

Spoliation: Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) Imposes a Higher Standard — Intent — Than Fourth Circuit Law Previously Applied to Spoliation of Electronically-Stored Information (And Still Does As to Non-ESI) — Willfulness vs. Intent

Doe v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18645 (4th Cir. July 29, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM: *1 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. In 2015, a school…
Continue Reading

Inherent Power and § 1927 Sanctions: Removal of counsel from case, referral for disciplinary action, and award of fees and costs for assaulting opposing counsel at deposition — Failure to request hearing waive any right to a hearing — Notice and opportunity to be heard required before sua sponte sanctions imposed, whether under Rule 11, the inherent power of the court or § 1927 — Notice may come from court or opposing counsel — Order imposing sanctions cannot provide notice of sanctions — Nature of bad faith requirement for inherent power sanctions: bad faith to obstruct the judicial process or bring about violation of a court order — Sanctions proceeding need not defer (Younger abstention) to disciplinary proceeding involving the same conduct — Sanctions proceeding doesn’t threaten to interfere with disciplinary proceeding — Why District Court is accorded significant deference in matters concerning attorney’s fees

Vega v. Chi. Bd. of Educ., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18614 (7th Cir. July 29, 2024): *1 Caryn Shaw, an attorney for the Plaintiffs in this case, allegedly assaulted opposing counsel Lisa Dreishmire after a heated deposition at the Chicago …
Continue Reading

Rule 11 Sanctions — Even If Court Invites Sanctions Motion, Safe Harbor Must Be Complied With — If Safe Harbor Is Not Provided, Court May Not Proceed Sua Sponte without Affording the Due Process Required by Rule 11(c)(3): Issuing a Show Cause Order Why Conduct Specifically Described In The Order Has Not Violated — The Show Cause Order Need Not Be A Separate Order — Appellee’s Request That Appellate Court Consider Alternate Ground of Inherent Power Sanctions Fails Due to Lack of Notice That Inherent Power Sanctions, and Therefore Bad Faith, Were At Issue

Kennard Law P.C. v. United Airlines, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19962 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (unpublished): PER CURIAM:* *1 After granting summary judgment for the defendant employer in an employment discrimination lawsuit, the district court sanctioned the…
Continue Reading

FRAP 38 Sanctions: An Appeal That Has “Some Arguable Basis” Either in Law or Fact—A Low Bar—Is Not Frivolous — “Simply Quibbl[ing]”/Raising Factual Disputes Insufficient to Obtain Sanctions — Sixth Circuit Usually Imposes FRAP 38 Sanctions Only If An Improper Purpose Underlies the Appeal — Simply Seeking Sanctions Below (Unsuccessfully) And On Appeal Is Not Per Se Violative of § 1927

Wershe v. City of Detroit, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 20145 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2024) (unpublished): ORDER *1 Plaintiff Richard Wershe, Jr., sued the City of Detroit and various former state and federal law enforcement officials on July 20, 2021,…
Continue Reading

RICO: “The RICO Statute Is A Very Powerful, But Tricky, Tool” (Good Quote) — The Seven Elements of a RICO Claim, Before Even Reaching Injury and Causation — “Courts Must Flush Out Frivolous RICO Completes At An Early Stage Of The Litigation” (Good Quote) — 9(b) Obligations for Fraud-Based RICO Claims — The 3 Features of the Structure Requirement for the Enterprise Element — Factors Analyzed in Determining Whether Association-in-Fact Enterprise Pled — Hub-and-Spoke Structure ≠ Enterprise —Merely Taking Directions Insufficient for §1962(c) Liability —Operation and Management Test = Low Hurdle —Commission of Predicate Acts by Enterprise Insufficient — RICO Persons Must Commit the Acts —2-Year Minimum for Closed-End Continuity in Second Circuit — Horizontal and Vertical Relatedness: Requirements

Keyu Long v. Shunhuang Zhuang, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141434 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2024) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TARYN A. MERKL, United States Magistrate Judge: Keyu Long, named personally and derivatively on behalf of J Navi De Fund One LLC,…
Continue Reading

Rule 11 — Appealability: Time to Appeal Runs from Entry of Order Quantifying Sanctions, Not from Subsequent Entry of Judgment Restating Same Fee Awards — No Separate Document Setting Forth Judgment Required under Rule 58 Because Rule 11 Award Falls within 58(a)(3) Exception — Fact Judgment Entered Irrelevant to Question of Timeliness of Appeal — Failure to Request a Hearing on Sanctions = Waiver of Any Right to One; FRAP 38 Sanctions Warranted When Result Is Obvious Or Appellant’s Argument Is Wholly without Merit

Upchurch v. O’Brien, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 19560 (7th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024): *1 For years Timothy Upchurch waged a relentless and disturbing campaign of harassment against his neighbors, Timothy and Margaret O’Brien, in a dispute over a claimed easement …
Continue Reading

Inherent Power Sanctions: Barring Lead Counsel from Delivering Closing Argument at Trial Within Trial Court’s Discretion as Sanction for Serial Misconduct, Including Deposition Misconduct, Obstructionist Discovery Tactics; Scheduling Order Violations, Disregard of In Limine Orders and Ignoring a Sustained Objection

Rightchoice Managed Care, Inc. v. Hosp. Partners, Inc., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 18599 (8th Cir. July 29, 2024): *1 Beau Gertz, Mark Blake, SeroDynamics, and LabMed Services (collectively, the Sero Defendants) perpetrated a pass-through billing scheme for lab tests billed…
Continue Reading

Sanctions: (1) Rule 11(c)(2) “Nonfrivolous Argument for Extending, Modifying, or Reversing Existing Law or For Establishing New Law”: Argument Barred by Supreme Court or Circuit Precedent “Not Per Se Sanctionable—An Attempt to Distinguish One’s Case … Is Enough” —(2) Mere Loss on Summary Judgment Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Sanctions Are Apt: Absence of Genuine Issue of Material Fact Does Not Negate Existence of Plausible Factual and Legal Contentions

Mazurek v. Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc., 2024 WL 3632732 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024): Opinion Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judge. *1 A group of employees sued their employer, Metalcraft of Mayville, for failing to pay them for time spent working just…
Continue Reading
Previous10111213141516Next

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