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

Sanctions — Finding of Professional Misconduct Appealable Even If No Sanction Imposed — Extrajudicial Conduct Sanctionable under Inherent Power — Rule 41(a)(1) Dismissal OK for Any Reason, Including to “Flee the Jurisdiction or the Judge”

Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13369 (8th Cir. July 25, 2017): In this consolidated appeal, the appellants, attorneys for plaintiffs2 and defendants3 in a putative class action, appeal from the district court's orders (1) finding…
Continue Reading

Judicial Notice of Internet Evidence: Notice Taken on 12(b)(1) Motion of Records on Gov’t & University Websites, and Docs Obtained via FOIA, for Purpose of Showing the Info Was Publicly Available — Wayback Machine Results, Too

U.S. ex rel. Hong v. Newport Sensors, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188295 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2016): PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE (Doc. …
Continue Reading

§ 1927 Sanctions: Recklessness Alone Insufficient — Argument Not Frivolous If Issue Unresolved and Out-of-Circuit Precedent Supports It — Failure to Withdraw Claim & Opposing Dismissal Once Aware of Baselessness Is Sanctionable

Stone Creek, Inc. v Omnia Italian Design, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12393 (9th Cir. July 11, 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

Rule 36 Admissions — Judge “Implicitly” Allowed Withdrawal by Admitting Contrary Testimony: “To Order a New Trial on the Basis of a Technical Error Would Be to Arrogate Form over Substance, Wasting Everybody’s Time to No Purpose” (Good Quote)

The plaintiff, which for simplicity we'll call just Tate, sells ingredients used in the food and beverage industry. The defendant, Glatt, a member of a substantial German conglomerate called the Glatt group, sells processing equipment to the food industry. In…
Continue Reading

Equivocal Texts ≠ Statements against Penal Interest — Mere Possibility Witness Might Invoke Fifth ≠ Unavailability — Authentication of Texts by Evidence of Phone Ownership & Contents OK, But Double Hearsay, Cloudy Circumstances Insufficient

Cottmeyer v. State, 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 725 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 17, 2017): Appellant, Matthew Everett Cottmeyer, was charged in the Circuit Court for Somerset County, Maryland, with first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, theft…
Continue Reading

Attorney-Client Privilege & Work Product: Mere Allegations, Bare Assertions Insufficient to Invoke Crime-Fraud Exception — What Is a Prima Facie Showing? — Client’s Current Law Firm May Appeal via Perlman

In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10690 (3d Cir. June 16, 2017): *   This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. This case involves the…
Continue Reading

Waiver of Securities Claims Is Invalid (§ 29(a)), But All Other Claims Are Gone, Including RICO — Moving to Amend within Statute of Repose Makes Claim Timely — Denial of Leave to Amend Requires Prejudice or Bad Faith (Factors), Not Mere Delay

Pasternack v. Schrader, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12513 (2d Cir. July 13, 2017): The plaintiffs are retired officers of Booz Allen Hamilton, a privately-held corporation. Bruce Pasternack, Reginald Boudinot, and Paul Kocourek allege that they were improperly denied compensation when, …
Continue Reading

Contrary to 6th Circuit (see our 7/12/17 post), New York Court of Appeals Seems to Require That Authentication of Any Photo on Social Media Requires Authentication of Page or ID of Owner — But the Case Was Argued That Way

People v Price, 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 1694 (N.Y. Ct. App. June 27, 2017): On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the People proffered a sufficient foundation at trial to authenticate a photograph — purportedly of defendant holding a…
Continue Reading
Previous134135136137138139140Next

Recent Articles

FRAP 38 and Pro Se Litigants — Observations, Not Sanctions, For Non-Existent Quotations

Rule 37(c)(1) Exclusion Sanction: Under R&R Sails, A Discovery Sanction Is Not Claim Dispositive Just Because It Makes It “Much More Difficult, Perhaps Almost Impossible” For A Party To Proceed With Its Claim Or Argument — The Sanction Must Be Fatal — Only Then Is Proof of Willfulness, Fault Or Bad Faith Required — To The Extent The Imposition Of Sanctions Turns On The Resolution Of An Issue Of Law, Review Is De Novo

Supreme Court: Party Moving to Set Aside Void Judgment Under Rule 60(b)(4) Must Do So Within A Reasonable Time Per Rule 60(c)(1)

Supreme Court: Erie/Rule 8/Rule 11: Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Conflicts with and Overrides Delaware’s Affidavit of Merit in Medical Malpractice Actions — A Valid Rule of Civil Procedure Displaces Contrary State Law Even If The State Law Is Substantive — Rule 11’s Proviso That “[U]nless A Rule Or Statute Specifical States Otherwise, A Pleading Need Not Be Verified Or Accompanied By An Affidavit” Refers to Rules Or Statutes Requiring Represented Parties To Verify Pleading Or Sign Affidavits — It Has Nothing To Do With Affidavits From Third Parties — Good Quote: Drawing A Negative Inference from Text Is Sometimes the Best Way To Understand It

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?

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