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

Twitter Admissibility — Photo on Twitter Offered to Show Defendant with Vehicle Similar to One Police Allegedly Pursued Him in Not Hearsay — It is Evidence Supporting Inference Defendant Was in Vehicle

People v. Larkins, 2017 IL App (1st) 143420-U (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2017): *1 ¶ 1 Held: The trial court did not err when it denied defendant’s motion to suppress the identification. Defendant’s sixth amendment right to counsel was…
Continue Reading

Rule 37(c)(1) Sanctions: Failure to Identify Witness in Initial Disclosures Harmless Where Her SJ Declaration Was Necessary Only to Authenticate Documents Whose Authenticity the Opponent Did Not Dispute

Burden v. Bar Loui Anaheim, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8600 (9th Cir. May 16, 2017): *   This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Kay Burden appeals the …
Continue Reading

Fraudulent Joinder (or Misjoinder) — If the Case Commences in State Court, Is the Propriety of Joinder Determined under the State or Federal Joinder Standard? — Case Law Split

Two Cases: 1.  Tampa Elec. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144524 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2017):   This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff Tampa Electric Company's ("TECO") Motion to Remand, filed…
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions for Refusal to Dismiss Meritless Case with Prejudice — No New Right to 41(a)(1) Dismissal of Right by Amending or after Removal — 41(a)(2) Dismissal Factors

Baiul v. NBC Sports, 2017 WL 3911576 (2d Cir. Sept. 7, 2017): *1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the orders of the district court are AFFIRMED. Plaintiffs-appellants Oksana Baiul and her company, Oksana,…
Continue Reading

RICO Injury — Exposure to Future, Unthreatened Claims as a Result of Re-selling Fraudulent Product Is Speculative, Doesn’t State RICO Loss, But Cost of Retroactive Insurance Policy to Cover Claims Might

Ratajczak v. Beazley Solutions Ltd., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16782 (7th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017): Between 2006 and 2012 Packerland Whey Products, Inc., deceived at least one of its customers about the protein content of a product called Whey [*3]…
Continue Reading
Previous128129130131132133134Next

Recent Articles

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 Propoerty 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

RICO: Cover-Up Within Limitations Period of Untimely RICO Violation “Was Merely A Continuation” Of The Original Injury And Could Not Be Used “As A ‘Bootstrap’ To Salvage [The] Time-Barred Claims–Declining to Apply Pinkerton Doctrine to Civil RICO Claims

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